Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

Youth Conference, Berlin

Mr. G. R. Howard: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the terms of reference of the delegation representing the London Standing Conferences of Voluntary Youth Organisations, in association with the London Council of Social Service, for whom he provided the necessary allowances, and who are leaving on 19th March for a conference on unemployed youth in Berlin.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): At the request of the Foreign Office certain persons drawn from British bodies interested in youth welfare will take part with their German counterparts in discussions to be held in Berlin from 18th to 28th March on the various vocational and educational problems confronting the unemployed youth of Berlin. The British participants were recommended by the London Standing Conference of Voluntary Youth Organisations on the basis of their personal qualifications and ability to take part in such discussions. As is usual in these cases, they will attend in their private capacity and have, therefore, been given no terms of reference.

Mr. Howard: In view of the fact that the object of this exercise is to co-operate in forming a link between the young people of London and those of Berlin, is the Minister aware that it seems strange to many people that the list includes no representatives of any such youth organisations as the Boy Scouts or Girl Guides or Boys' Brigade, or of any of these well-known youth organisations in this country?

Mr. Lloyd: In this matter the Foreign Office acted on the advice of the London Standing Conference of Voluntary Youth Organisations, which is understood to be a body representative of all the organisations to which my hon. Friend referred.

Mr. Howard: Is my right hon. and learned Friend also aware that, as a member of that body, I can say that there are on it representatives of these youth movements; but that I have here a list of the people who are attending the conference and, although their qualifications are very high, would it not have been useful to have included in the list members of these youth organisations who are also members of that body?

Mr. Speaker: I think that is a matter of debate.

War Criminals

Mr. F. J. Erroll: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many war criminals, S.S. men, former Gestapo and concentration camps' staffs have worked, or are working, without guard outside Werl Prison.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: During the period October, 1950, to February, 1952, six persons of the types enumerated, comprising four men and two women, have been so employed without guard. They have worked as gardeners and domestic help in the Governor's house and warders' mess close to the prison. No such person is now working outside the main part of the prison without guard.

Mr. Erroll: In view of the dreadful nature of the offences for which these people were convicted, is it desirable that they should have been accorded these privileges?

Mr. Lloyd: I am not sure that, in fact, they were accorded any privileges. One of the reasons these persons were used in this work was that they were the most suitable persons for it.

Mr. Barnett Janner: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate that any leniency shown to these brutes, who were convicted for the most vicious crimes, may be regarded by the followers of neo-Nazism as something in their favour? Will he please take every possible precaution not to encourage the rise of that nefarious movement by any action of this sort?

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Erroll.

Mr. Janner: On a point of order. I should like an answer to my supplementary question, if possible. It is a very important question.

Mr. Speaker: I did not understand the point of the question.

Mr. Lloyd: I also had some difficulty in understanding what was the precise point of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. There is no intention by this practice to give any special benefits to this class of prisoner. In these matters, the prison authorities are governed by the German penal regulations, under which there is no discrimination between particular types of prisoner.

Mr. Janner: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that even if it is not a privilege to the individual himself, the fact that he is allowed to go outside the prison gates when other prisoners could be used for that purpose will, in itself, indicate to the neo-Nazis that we do not regard the crimes which they have committed with the same fierceness as we did before?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not agree that that inference arises. In fact, no such person will be permitted to work, or is now permitted to work, outside the main part of the prison without a guard.

Mr. Erroll: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why labour to help in the house of the commandant of Werl War Criminals Prison is not recruited from among the 1,100 Allied and German common criminals also housed in the same prison instead of from among the 139 war criminals convicted of crimes against the Allies.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Female prisoners are employed as domestic help in the official houses attached to Werl Prison in accordance with the normal German penal practice. There has been no question of war criminals only being employed in the Governor's house to the exclusion of other criminals: no distinction is made between different classes of prisoners where work is concerned. At the present moment, however, there are eight women held in Werl Prison as war criminals and only two other women criminals. As one of those was convicted on a charge of murder and the other of

espionage it was not thought suitable that they should be employed on work of this nature.

Mr. Erroll: In this case, as there were already eight female prisoners in this prison, would it not have been much better to have accorded equality of treatment to them, and not appear, however unintentionally, to seem to give preferential treatment to female war criminals?

Mr. E. Fernyhough: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what grounds 11 German war criminals were released from Werl Prison in Western Germany on 26th February, 1952.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: These 11 men were released on the expiry of their sentences.

Mr. Fernyhough: But is the Minister of State aware that one of them is a Nazi general—Kurt Gallenkamp—who was convicted of having been responsible for the execution of several British prisoners and one American prisoner? Does he think, in view of the reply he gave me a fortnight ago today that none of the people released had committed war crimes of the first order, that his answer today corresponds with the facts of the situation?

Mr. Lloyd: This group of 11 men has been released in pursuance of a practice, which will cover all such prisoners, of allowing a third remission of sentence for good conduct, and of allowing for the time spent in pre-trial custody to be counted towards the sentence.

Frisian Population, Heligoland

Professor Sir Douglas Savory: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he is taking in the discussion of the contractual arrangements now being negotiated with the Federal Government of Western Germany for the protection of the rights and privileges of the native Frisian population of Heligoland, in accordance with the petition dated February, 1952, which the hon. Member for Antrim, South, has sent to him.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: None, Sir.

Sir D. Savory: Is my right hon. and learned Friend not aware that in the Anglo-German Treaty of 1890 rights—


most definite rights—were laid down? We are asking that these rights should be confirmed. What they want is that their own language—the Frisian language—should be taught in the schools. In view of the fact that that Treaty was so shamefully violated, we must ask for some guarantee.

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend refers in his Question specifically to a petition dated February, 1952. That was a petition making an appeal for money and gifts in kind. It does not seem really appropriate as a subject for discussion.

Sir D. Savory: Will not my right hon. and learned Friend read the petition again, and the numerous other petitions which I have sent in to the Foreign Office?

Mr. Cahir Healy: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman what arrangements he has made for the protection of the peaceful inhabitants of a place for which we have some responsibility, and who were attacked by the local police at a meeting on St. Patrick's Day in Derry? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Has the Minister no reply as to the protection of the peaceful citizens of Derry, who are in a majority?

Danish Population, South Schleswig

Sir D. Savory: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he is taking in the contractual arrangements now being negotiated with the Federal Government of Western Germany to obtain a guarantee in the Kiel Agreement for the protection of Danish schools and equality of rights between the native Danish population and the Germans in South Slesvig.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: None, Sir. The Kiel Declaration will remain unaffected by the conclusion of the contractual agreements, and is not a subject which could be included in them.

Sir D. Savory: Is my right hon. and learned Friend not aware the whole Danish population demands that the Kiel Agreement should be guaranteed? They demand that 80 Danish schools should be upheld, and they fear that they will not be maintained unless we protect them.

Mr. Lloyd: The Kiel Declaration is a unilateral declaration by the Provincial

Government of Schleswig-Holstein supplementing the guarantee of minority rights given in the basic law of the Federal Republic, and referring to the rights of Danish sympathisers in Schleswig-Holstein. Neither the Government nor any of the other Occupying Powers are parties to it.

Sir D. Savory: Did not the British Commissioner preside over the deliberations? Is it not a contractual obligation between the Germans and Danes in Schleswig-Holstein which must be incorporated in the Treaty?

Mr. Healy: Arising out of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's answer, may I ask if the majority of the inhabitants of Derry are guaranteed their rights, and protection against attacks by the Northern Ireland police?

Illegitimate Children

Mr. R. W. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what official representations have been received from the West German Parliament by the Western Allied High Commission in respect of financial and other considerations for more than 94,000 illegitimate children in West Germany who were fathered by Allied occupation soldiers.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: No specific representations have been received from the Federal Government or Parliament on this subject, although the question of future arrangements is the subject of negotiation with the German authorities in connection with the contractual settlement. As explained in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) on 12th March, publication of the Convention is not possible at the moment.

Mr. Sorensen: Do I understand that, although negotiations are being carried on, representations in those negotiations have come only from one side? Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman not seen reports of definite proposals made by the West German Government regarding this very serious matter?

Mr. Lloyd: This is an extremely complicated matter, and my information is that there have been no specific representations upon the subject, but I am making further investigations with regard to it in order to ascertain what the position is.

Mr. Sorensen: Could we have the information circulated at some time?

Mr. Lloyd: Perhaps if the hon. Gentleman would permit me to inform him, he might consider whether he would like to put down another Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-PRISONERS OF WAR, JAPAN (COMPENSATION)

Major Tufton Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what sum of money the United Kingdom will receive as her share of the sum of £1,250,000 recently obtained from the sale of loot seized by Japanese forces in the war; and whether the amount obtained will be added to the funds from which those who suffered in Japanese prison camps are to be assisted.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: As regards the first part of the Question, the United Kingdom will receive 12 per cent. of these funds. The answer to the second part of the Question is that when the money has been received consideration will be given to the various claims which may be made upon it.

Major Beamish: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that British Far Eastern prisoners of war feel that they have been far from generously treated in comparison with American and Australian Far Eastern prisoners? Although I appreciate that there may be a good many interests who would like part of this money which will be available, will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind the claims of the British Far Eastern prisoners?

Mr. Lloyd: I can certainly say that the claims of ex-prisoners of war in the Far East will be given very sympathetic consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARAB REFUGEES (U.N. PLAN)

Mr. M. Philips Price: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what contribution Her Majesty's Government have decided to make to finance the plan prepared by the United Nations whereby the Relief and Works Agency shall re-settle in various parts of the Middle East the 800,000 Arab refugees from Palestine.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Her Majesty's Government are contributing £4,452,440 to the first year of the Agency's three-year relief and re-settlement programme. The interest-free development loan of £1.5 million which Her Majesty's Government have recently offered to the Jordan Government will also contribute indirectly to the carrying out of this programme.

Mr. Philips Price: While appreciating very much what is being done, may I ask whether the Government fully appreciate how important a solution of this Arab refugee question is for good relations between this country and many of the Arab countries?

Mr. Lloyd: My right hon. Friend is very well aware of that point. That is one of the reasons we did everything we could to facilitate the passing of the Resolution at the United Nations, as a result of which we hope that this programme will be speedily implemented.

Major Beamish: As sufficient funds are now available for the beginnings of resettlement on a large scale, does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, to a large extent, the success of this scheme will depend on the good will and co-operation of the Arab Governments themselves?

Mr. Lloyd: I quite agree.

Oral Answers to Questions — DIPLOMATS (TRAVEL RESTRICTIONS)

Mr. C. E. Mott-Radclyffe: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how far the diplomatic missions of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and other countries in the Russian sphere of influence accredited to the Court of St. James now enjoy facilities or privileges that are not similarly accorded to Her Majesty's diplomatic missions in those countries concerned.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I will, with permission, circulate a summary of the principal differences, which are very numerous, in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Would my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, within the limits of what is practicable, it would be far better that we should proceed, on this question, upon the basis of full reciprocity?

Mr. Lloyd: Well, we are seeking to achieve something near reciprocity. Even so, the position of the representatives of those countries in Great Britain will be substantially better than that of our representatives over there.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure the House that it is not the intention of the Government to commit in our name and on our behalf every one of the follies committed on the other side of the Iron Curtain?

Mr. Lloyd: We have stopped considerably short of certain of the steps that are taken in most Iron Curtain countries towards our representatives. If any relaxation of the sort of conditions imposed upon our diplomats is shown by any of the Governments concerned, we shall be only too happy speedily to reciprocate.

Mr. Ede: Who has the responsibility for enforcing these restrictions in this country—the Foreign Office or the Home Office?

Mr. Lloyd: That is a question of which I should like notice.

Following is the summary:
The following are the main respects in which the treatment accorded to Her Majesty's representatives in the countries of the Soviet orbit compares unfavourably with that granted to the Missions of the same countries in the United Kingdom.
As the Report of the Committee of which Lord Justice Somervell was Chairman shows, immunity from civil jurisdiction is accorded in the United Kingdom not only to diplomatic officers of Embassies and Legations, but to the entire staff, including clerks and typists (unless they are British subjects and personal servants of whatsoever nationality). Likewise immunity from criminal jurisdiction is accorded not only to the diplomatic staffs, properly so-called, but also to subordinate officials and servants of a foreign Mission who would not be prosecuted except after consultation with the head of the Mission concerned and with his consent. The Soviet Union accords immunity from civil and criminal jurisdiction only to the diplomatic staffs, properly so-called, of a foreign Mission. Recent incidents have shown that the Governments of Roumania and Bulgaria interpret jurisdictional immunity in the same restricted sense.
Large areas of the Soviet Union, Roumania and Bulgaria are closed to travel by members of Her Majesty's Missions in those countries. Soviet and Bulgarian representatives here are not prevented from travelling to any destination, although, under arrangements recently announced, they are required to give advance

notice of journeys outside a radius of 25 miles from Hyde Park Corner.
In the United Kingdom all foreign Missions arrange their accommodation and settle other domestic problems by dealing directly with the private persons, agencies, firms or institutions concerned with these matters. In the Soviet Union the Diplomatic Corps must conduct all their domestic business such as renting accommodation, engaging local staff or consulting a doctor through a special bureau. This bureau makes exorbitant charges for many of its essential services. Somewhat similar monopoly organisations exist in Sofia, Prague and Bucharest.
The Customs privileges and facilities which are ordinarily accorded to diplomats appointed to the United Kingdom are, in general, considerably wider than those granted to members of Her Majesty's Foreign Service in the Soviet orbit. The discrepancy is greatest in the case of Roumania.
Her Majesty's Government do not require any foreigner to obtain an exit visa to leave the United Kingdom. Members of Her Majesty's Foreign Service, on the other hand, are required to obtain a special permit for every journey out of the Soviet Union, Roumania, Czechoslovakia and Bulgaria. Moreover, under a recent decision the Czechoslovak Government now provide members of Her Majesty's Foreign Service proceeding to Czechoslovakia with visas for single journeys only, whereas Czechoslovak diplomats coming to this country are at present granted a permanent return visa which is valid for as long as the appointment in London is held.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN EXTRADITION CONVENTION

Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will do his best to ensure that the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, at their meeting on 19th March, take a decision on the Consultative Assembly's Recommendation 16, which deals with the working out of a European Extradition Convention.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH PROTESTANT CHURCH, SEVILLE (ATTACK)

Sir D. Savory: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that, on 4th March, an attack was made on the British-owned Protestant church in Seville, when the minister was knocked down and the furniture and hymn books were set on fire; and if he


will make a protest to the Spanish Government and demand compensation for the minister and for the damage done to the furniture.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Yes, Sir. Her Majesty's Ambassador at Madrid has reported this most regrettable act of hooliganism and has delivered a Note to the Spanish Government reserving the right to present a claim for compensation to cover damage to British property. As soon as fuller details of the incident and an exact assessment of the damage are available, I will consider what form our representations to the Spanish Government should take.

Sir D. Savory: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that this is simply the culmination of a whole series of attacks on Protestant churches, and that I have in my hand a list of nine, the last being an attack at Oreuse, where the Protestant chapel was blown up by a bomb?

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman also bear in mind that previous attacks have been made against Protestant churches in Spain; and will he take every opportunity of emphasising to the world that we in this country are irrevocably opposed to religious persecution, whether it is against Catholics in Hungary or Protestants in Spain?

Mr. Healy: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman also aware that that is the normal condition in another country? Is he aware that a Catholic church in Willowfield, Belfast, was bombed, and that the friends of the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Sir D. Savory), were not prosecuted?

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST INDIES

Infantry Battalion, Eastern Caribbean

Major Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what consideration has been given to the possibility of raising an infantry battalion in the Eastern Caribbean territories; and whether he is aware that a decision to raise such a battalion would find a ready response from voluntary recruits.

Mr. Bernard Braine: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps have been taken to re-form the West Indies Regiment.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Oliver Lyttelton): There is at present one local infantry battalion in Jamaica. In August, 1951, my predecessor put to Colonial Governments in the Caribbean area proposals for the establishment in its place of a force of two local Regular infantry battalions, to be liable for service throughout the area. Conditions of service and the division of costs between Her Majesty's Government and Colonial Governments are still being worked out. Recruits for the force will be drawn from all the Colonies concerned, and I have no doubt that the response will be satisfactory.

Major Beamish: Is this a revival of the old West Indies Regiment, which had such high traditions, or is it some other force?

Mr. Lyttelton: I find that one rather difficult to answer. I think I must look into that.

Mr. Braine: Having regard to the fact that this matter was mooted in August of last year, can my right hon. Friend say whether an early decision can be expected?

Mr. Lyttelton: Yes. The plans have been put back by the destruction of the barracks by a hurricane, and that has caused some delay.

Drug Traffic, Jamaica

Mr. Braine: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken by the Jamaican Government to suppress traffic in drugs.

Mr. Lyttelton: The Jamaican police, with the help of other Departments and of the Press, are waging a vigorous and effective campaign against ganja, the only drug in common use in Jamaica. Cultivations are raided and destroyed. Growers of ganja and people found in possession of it are prosecuted. The Governor of Jamaica informs me that a propaganda campaign against the drug, will shortly be launched.

Mr. Braine: Is my right hon. Friend aware that efforts to stamp out this dreadful traffic have failed; that the drug is even peddled inside Jamaican prisons; that there is some evidence to suggest that the practice is spreading to this country through the medium of


Jamaican immigrants; and will he, as a matter of the greatest urgency, consult again with the Jamaican Government to see whether the efforts to stamp out this dreadful traffic can be intensified?

Mr. Lyttelton: I think that police action is effective. I have already told my hon. Friend that a propaganda campaign is being launched. In 1951, for example, there were 600 prosecutions, and about 60 per cent. convictions were obtained. I am fully alive to the danger of this traffic.

Jamaican Hurricane Relief Fund

Lady Tweedsmuir: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps he has taken to ensure that the Jamaican Hurricane Relief Fund has been wisely distributed.

Mr. Lyttelton: The Fund is administered by a Committee of which the Governor of Jamaica is Chairman, and the fifteen members are leading figures in the public life of the Colony.

Lady Tweedsmuir: In view of the fact that the British Government gave a very large sum to this Fund and that there have been widespread allegations in Jamaica that much of the relief has been badly distributed, and that, in some cases, goods have been resold, should the Secretary of State not impress upon the Government that an inquiry should be made into this distribution, and the accounts published?

Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. Lady should know that the Government of Jamaica are now investigating these allegations, and when I hear the results of the investigations, I will take the appropriate action.

British Honduras (Banana Exports)

Mr. Eric Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps have been taken to increase the export of bananas from British Honduras to Canada.

Mr. Lyttelton: I am consulting the Governor and will write to my hon. Friend when I have had his reply.

Mr. Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a very ready market in Canada for greatly increased imports of bananas, and would he not agree that

it would be much wiser to spend the British taxpayers' money in developing this market than on abortive attempts to raise beef cattle in an unsuitable country?

Mr. Lyttelton: There are serious marketing and shipping difficulties relating to the Canadian market which are now being investigated. I am not entirely hopeful about the result.

Mr. E. Shinwell: When the right hon. Gentleman is consulting the Governor on the export of this particular commodity to Canada, will he also inquire whether British vessels can be employed in this trade, and look into the whole question of the employment of British tonnage to and from the West Indies?

Mr. Lyttelton: I can certainly give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance. At the present moment we are examining the whole marketing and shipping question relating to this export trade, and the question which the right hon. Gentleman raises about the use of British bottoms in this trade will, of course, form part of that investigation.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a very important matter affecting British shipping and the commercial development of that particular area, and that one of the reasons that is given for the failure to develop that area is the lack of British shipping facilities?

Mr. Lyttelton: I have already given the right hon. Gentleman an assurance that the matter is being looked into, and I think that he has performed a public service in raising the matter again.

Mr. Peter Smithers: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the late Government were repeatedly pressed about this matter and did nothing about it?

Mr. James Griffiths: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no British shipping firm would put forward any proposal for developing this shipping trade without a very heavy subsidy?

Oral Answers to Questions — SEYCHELLES (FOOD SUBSIDIES)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what were the wages paid to labourers on Government and private coconut plantations in the Seychelles; what was the price of copra in 1947 and 1951, respectively; and, in


view of the increased cost of living, whether the food subsidies will be restored.

Mr. Lyttelton: The proclaimed monthly minimum wage for labourers on coconut plantations, based on a 33½ hours' week, was Rs. 16 in 1947 and Rs. 18.50 cents in 1951. It was increased to Rs. 22.20 cents for Government labour in August, 1951. Most labourers can, and many do, earn two or three times the minimum wage. It is believed that the wages paid on private plantations are approximately the same. The price for copra in 1947 was £40 10s. per ton; the average price for 1951 was £84 16s. Expenditure on food subsidies in 1947 was nil and in 1951 Rs. 432,000 (£32,400). A similar amount has been provided for food subsidies in the current year's Estimates. It will again be devoted to maize and coconut oil. There is no intention of restoring the subsidies on rice and sugar.

Mr. Sorensen: In view of the fact that, not only has the price of copra risen steeply but the cost of living has gone up even more steeply, will not the right hon. Gentleman take steps in order to avoid what undoubtedly is, and is likely to be increasing, hardship among the people of that island?

Mr. Lyttelton: The price of copra has now fallen, and I should be very careful about interfering in the negotiations.

Mr. Sorensen: Does that mean the right hon. Gentleman favours a policy of laissez-faire in this respect?

Mr. Lyttelton: No, it does not. I am watching the position now and if intervention is necessary, I shall, of course, take it, but I want to be careful.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST AFRICA

Yellow Fever, Enugu

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action has been taken to combat the outbreak of yellow fever in villages near Enugu, Nigeria, where over 200 Africans have died of this disease; and whether there has been regular routine inspection of mosquito breeding grounds and educational propaganda aimed at removing the source of disease.

Mr. Lyttelton: A well-organised and comparatively large staff has done everything possible to prevent the disease from spreading and about half a million people have already been vaccinated. No cases have been discovered during the last month and there is every sign that the epidemic is now under control. All appropriate measures of the kind indicated in the second part of the Question have been, and continue to be, taken.

Mr. Sorensen: Does it not seem likely that the deaths of these 200 Africans were due to some negligence in what are called the regular routine inspections of mosquito breeding grounds; and is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that everything was done before the unfortunate deaths of these 200 Africans?

Mr. Lyttelton: The first report of the epidemic was received at the regional medical headquarters on 19th November, and from the information that I have I am satisfied that as soon as that was known every step was taken as speedily as possible.

Intoxicating Beverages (Imports)

Mr. Cyril W. Black: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what amounts of beer, spirits or other intoxicating beverages were imported into each of the West African Colonies, Nigeria, the Gold Coast, Sierra Leone and Gambia, for 1950 and 1951, respectively.

Mr. Lyttelton: As the answer contains many figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Black: Can my right hon. Friend indicate whether the figures of these imports that he will circulate show an increase or a decrease on previous years?

Mr. Lyttelton: I have the table here. I think that I must ask my right hon. Friend to study it in the OFFICIAL REPORT, as it is rather long.

Mr. James Hudson: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether these figures are more or less than those that were arranged for at the time that Lord Passfield held the position that the right hon. Gentleman now holds?

Mr. Lyttelton: If the hon. Gentleman will put a Question on the Order Paper, I shall be glad to conduct the necessary research.

Following are the figures:


IMPORTATION OF BEER, SPIRITS, ETC., INTO WEST AFRICA, 1950 AND 1951


—
1950
1951


'000 galls.
£
'000 galls.
£


Nigeria:


Beer, Ale, Stout and Porter
…
…

2,580
904,921

4,289
1,767,764



Cider and Perry
…
…

(a)
(a)

4
2,403



Spirits
…
…
(b)
113
171,042
(b)
174
285,580



Wine
…
…

27
41,681

53
82,490



Gold Coast:


Beer, Ale, Stout and Porter
…
…

2,996
1,057,003

4,000
1,589,2591
(c)


Cider and Perry
…
…

8
4,434

6
3,478


Spirits
…
…
(b)
163
226,081
(b)
216
334,870


Wine
…
…

169
100,939

162
136,315


Sierra Leone:


Beer, Ale, Stout and Porter
…
…

325
131,449

322
129,905



Cider and Perry
…
…

1
606

(a)
(a)



Spirits
…
…
(b)
26
39,402
(b)
24
35,843



Wine
…
…

143
70,127

122
61,330



Gambia 
…
…

(a)
(a)

(a)
(a)



(a) Full details not yet available in London.


(b) Liquid gallons.


(c) Gold Coast 1951 figures are estimates based on 10 months' imports.

Oral Answers to Questions — CENTRAL AFRICAN FEDERATION

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies in what circumstances the Attorney-General of Northern Rhodesia has threatened the use of force against the African Congress, and against Central African Federation, and if this threat was made after consultation with him and with his consent or approval.

Mr. Lyttelton: At recent Congress meetings in Northern Rhodesia suggestions have been made that federation should be opposed by such means as a general strike, weekly paralysis strikes, mass exodus from towns and non-payment of taxes. The Attorney-General therefore judged it expedient to draw the attention of the Africans, through the two African Members of Legislative Council, to the legal position and to warn them of the limits beyond which they could not lawfully go, particularly as regards political strikes. He did not threaten the use of force and made it clear that Government wished Africans to have the fullest freedom of speech. This action, though taken without consultation with me, has my approval, as it also had that of the Governor.

Mr. Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear to all concerned that persuasion and not force is the only way to facilitate constitutional development in Africa, towards which the former Colonial Secretary took such sympathetic and energetic steps?

Mr. Lyttelton: That has nothing to do with the Question which the hon. and learned Gentleman has put down.

Mr. C. J. M. Alport: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear to the leaders of the Northern Rhodesian African Congress that the threats of violence which they have made recently will do nothing to advance their case in this matter?

Mr. Hughes: Does the Colonial Secretary decline to say that he will make clear to all concerned that persuasion and not force is the proper method to adopt in these circumstances?

Mr. Lyttelton: Force or persuasion by whom?

Mr. Hughes: By the Attorney-General of Northern Rhodesia who made the threats.

Mr. Lyttelton: The Attorney-General made it quite clear where the law runs, and that has been his action in the matter.

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will report fully and in detail to the House the communications which he has had with the Supreme Action Council of the African Congress relating to Central African Federation.

Mr. Lyttelton: I have had no communication with the Supreme Action Council of the African Congress on federation or any other matter.

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will report fully and in detail to the House the communications he has had with the Nyasaland Protectorate Council on the subject of Central African Federation.

Mr. Lyttelton: I have not so far had any communication from the African Protectorate Council on this subject but I understand that in February, when the Council agreed to accept my invitation to send a deputation to see me in London during April, they approved the text of a letter which will be handed to me by the deputation when it arrives.

Mr. Hughes: Has the Minister had communication or correspondence with any of these representative bodies relative to federation, and, if so, does he realise that this is a matter that should be dealt with openly in this House and not by methods of secret diplomacy?

Mr. Lyttelton: I must keep myself perfectly free to see what negotiations it would be appropriate to carry on, either in public or private.

Oral Answers to Questions — SEALING INDUSTRY, FALKLAND ISLANDS

Captain Robert Ryder: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent the Governor of the Falkland Islands has granted licences for sealing in Falkland Island waters; and what is the state of this industry.

Mr. Lyttelton: A licence to take seals has been granted in the Falkland Islands to the South Atlantic Sealing Company, Ltd., a subsidiary of the Colonial Development Corporation, and in South Georgia to the Compania Argentina de Pesca. Operations by the former company have been temporarily suspended owing to a dispute about the validity of

the licence granted to them, but I understand that a settlement of the dispute is now in sight. In South Georgia results have been satisfactory.

Captain Ryder: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the need for building up a wide range of industries in the Falkland Islands, and is he satisfied with the progress that has been made?

Mr. Lyttelton: No, I am not at all satisfied with the progress that has been made. It has been interrupted by a dispute which, I hope, is going to be settled.

Oral Answers to Questions — SINGAPORE

School Population and Accommodation

Mr. S. S. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the school population of Singapore; how many of the children attend school; and when he anticipates that school accommodation will be provided for all children.

Mr. Lyttelton: There are about 153,000 children of six to 12 and 69,000 of 12 to 16, of whom some 151,000 attend school. When schools now under construction are complete there will be places for all between six and 12. Despite the sharp rise in the birth-rate since the liberation, it is hoped that universal primary education can be provided by 1960.

Mr. Awbery: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the people of Malaya are more keenly interested in education for their children than in almost anything else, and will he speed up the school accommodation so that every child will have an opportunity of getting at least an elementary education?

Mr. Lyttelton: I agree with the hon. Member. This is one of the primary tasks to be undertaken in Malaya and Singapore.

City Council (Recommendation)

Mr. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many members of the Singapore City Council are elected and how many appointed; and what are the recommendations of Dr. L. G. Hill, who recently held an official


inquiry into the local government, regarding the composition of this Council.

Mr. Lyttelton: Eighteen members of the Singapore City Council are elected and nine are nominated by the Governor. Dr. Hill recommends that all 27 members should be elected.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that the Governor recently stated that if we are to win the war in Malaya we must win the minds and hearts of the people there, and that the best way of doing that is to give them self-government, locally and nationally, as quickly as possible?

Mr. Lyttelton: The Question on the Order Paper relates to Singapore, and the matter has not yet been discussed by the Legislative Council.

Oral Answers to Questions — TIMBER FELLING, SARAWAK

Mr. Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps have been taken to ensure that the operations of private concerns felling timber in Sarawak shall conform with approved working plans which ensure the maintenance of a sustained yield.

Mr. Lyttelton: In all "demarcated forests," which form the permanent forest estate of the Colony, timber fellings are under the law controlled by licence which stipulates amongst other things that operations must conform to a working plan for sustained yield approved by the Conservator of Forests.

Mr. Smithers: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some misgivings have been expressed in professional circles as to the effect of the present Regulations, and will he look at this matter again?

Mr. Lyttelton: Certainly I am prepared to look into it again.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL EMPIRE

Economic and Development Council

Mr. John Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why he has abolished the Colona] Economic Advisory Committee.

Mr. Lyttelton: The main function of the Colonial Economic and Development Council (to which I assume that the right hon. Member is referring) was to advise upon new colonial development plans. Such plans having now been adopted by almost every Colonial Government, I have not felt justified in keeping the Council in being.

Mr. Dugdale: Is not the real reason that the right hon. Gentleman is afraid of exposing his economic nakedness to these eminent gentlemen, who really do know something about economics?

Development Corporation (Report)

Mr. Alport: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when he anticipates that the report of the Colonial Development Corporation will be available.

Mr. Lyttelton: I am unable to give a definite date but I hope that the report will be published by the end of next month.

Mr. Alport: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern which recent reports of the failure of C.D.C. schemes have caused, and when the report is available will he ensure that this House has an opportunity of debating it?

Mr. Lyttelton: That is not a matter for me.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

Dockyards (Select Committee's Reports)

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) what action he has taken or proposes to take on the 8th and 9th Reports from the Select Committee on Estimates;
(2) what action he proposes to take on paragraphs 21 and 75 (6) of the 8th and 9th Reports of the Select Committee on Estimates which deals with Her Majesty's Dockyards;
(3) what action he proposes to take on paragraphs 12 to 23 of the 8th and 9th Reports of the Select Committee on Estimates.

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas): As my hon. and gallant Friend said in winding-up the debate on


the Navy Estimates, a number of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Estimates in their report on the dockyards are still under consideration, and I must ask the hon. Member to await the reply which the Admiralty will shortly be sending to the Select Committee.

Mr. Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is some time ago since this Select Committee's Report was published, and I should have thought that ample time had been given to enable its recommendations to be considered; and in view of the uneasiness that exists because of so much rate-cutting in the past and the favouritism that exists with regard to the merit scheme, is it not time in the national interest that action should be taken?

Mr. Thomas: Some of the recommendations were very complicated and some very good. The Admiralty have been going very thoroughly into the whole Report, and it will not be long before we write to the Estimates Committee. I understand that it would be improper for me to give orally to the House information which has first to be sent in writing by the Admiralty to the Select Committee on Estimates.

Mr. Michael Foot: In view of the fact that many of the recommendations contained in this Select Committee's Report merely repeat recommendations made by the Committee as long ago as 1927 to the Admiralty, and pigeon-holed by the Admiralty, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that there should be the most earnest consideration given to these recommendations; and can he give an assurance that there will be a full discussion and statement in the reply which is made by his Department?

Mr. Thomas: The fact remains that these recommendations came from the present Select Committee on Estimates, and it would be very discourteous of me not to reply first to the Committee in writing. I can assure the hon. Member that if he wishes to discuss our reply to the Report in full I will, when the time comes, certainly make recommendations to the proper quarter.

Sir Ralph Glyn: May I ask the First Lord of the Admiralty to maintain the attitude that it is against the whole procedure of the House of Commons for any statement to be made in the House

before a reply is made to the Select Committee on Estimates by the Department concerned?

Colleges (Staff—Student Ratio)

Sir Herbert Williams: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the ratio of staff to students, respectively, at the Royal Naval College, Greenwich, the Naval Staff College, the Naval War College, the Royal Naval Engineering College and the Royal Naval College, Dartmouth.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir H. Williams: Will my right hon. Friend examine the staffing of these educational institutions in comparison with that of residential universities with a view to effecting economies?

Mr. Thomas: Yes, Sir. It is my object, as I said in my speech on the Estimates, to effect certain economies, and I am sure that the subject which my hon. Friend mentions will be one for me to consider.

Following is the answer:

The present ratio of supervising and teaching staff, both naval and civilian, to students at these establishments is as follows:


(i) Royal Naval College, Greenwich
1:4.4


(ii) Royal Naval Staff College, Greenwich
1:4.6


(iii) Royal Naval War College, Greenwich
1:12


(iv) Royal Naval Engineering College, Devonport
1:4.4


(v) Royal Naval College, Dartmouth
1:5.6

Shipbuilding (Steel Allocation)

Mr. Frederick Willey: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty on what grounds the allocation of steel for shipbuilding has been reduced.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: At the present time steel is scarcer than it was in the first quarter of 1950, the last full quarter for which allocations were previously made, but it is hoped that this shortage will be only temporary.

Mr. Willey: While I am very much enheartened to hear what the right hon. Gentleman has said, does he realise that the shipbuilders are facing a very serious


problem in trying to complete a four-year programme of orders in three years in order to enable them to hold their own in world markets, and that this is a very serious matter which merits his very careful consideration?

Mr. Thomas: I can assure the hon. Member that the Admiralty, and, indeed, the Government as a whole, know how serious the matter is. I have seen a deputation from the shipbuilders and all branches of the shipbuilding industry, and I am fully aware what their difficulties are. I hope we shall be able to give them a more encouraging answer very soon.

Retired List (Removed Officer)

Mr. I. Mikardo: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty why Commander Edgar P. Young has been removed from the Navy List.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: The name of Mr. Edgar P. Young has been removed from the list of retired officers of the Royal Navy because the Admiralty have, and will have, no further use for his services. His activities on behalf of the Communist Party are proving a source of such embarrassment and distress to the Royal Navy at home and abroad that it has been found necessary to make it clear that the Admiralty do not hold themselves responsible in any way for his conduct, and that he is not entitled to call himself Commander R.N. (retired) nor to wear naval uniform.
I am sure there is no need to tell the House that very great consideration was given to the case of Mr. Young before this decision was taken but, acting as I am on behalf of all those who are serving their country loyally in the Royal Navy, I am convinced that this decision was the right one.

Mr. Mikardo: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman two Questions? First, are their Lordships now introducing, by a side-wind, an entirely new principle, that because of his political opinions, however repugnant, and in a situation in which there are no considerations of security, a man may be disadvantaged purely on political grounds? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] There cannot be any security considerations in the case of a retired officer.
Secondly, how does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile his answer with the

fact that Admiral Sir Barry Domville, who has urged Fascist opinions, and who was interned during the war as a potential enemy of this country, remains on the same list from which Commander Young has been removed?

Mr. Thomas: I can assure the House that there is no intention of curtailing Mr. Young's political activities or his freedom of speech. What we are anxious to achieve is that he should not do and say these things in the guise of a naval officer.
As to the second part of the supplementary question, I can only speak from my own period of administration at the Admiralty, and, to the best of my knowledge, Admiral Domville is in retirement and is not engaged in any political activities at the present time.

Mr. James Callaghan: As it is quite clear that Commander Young is being accused of misconduct, under what Section of Queen's Regulations is the First Lord acting, and what opportunity has been given to Commander Young—[HON. MEMBERS: "Mr. Young."]—to the commander—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—to state his case? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me of any other precedent for an officer being removed from the Navy List with this lack of formality?

Mr. Thomas: I can assure the hon. Gentleman—he was Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty and probably knows this—that the Board of Admiralty have complete discretion by their Patent to dispense with the services of any officer found to be unsatisfactory, without necessarily giving the reasons. I have today given the reason to the House. Mr. Young was informed of the decision of the Board of Admiralty, and he has replied in full and the Admiralty have in turn replied to his answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Trade Union Membership

Major Guy Lloyd: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General for what purposes and under what authority his officers propose to inspect trade union membership cards; and why they should satisfy themselves about the authenticity and validity of these private and unofficial documents.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. David Gammans): I am not sure to what my hon. and gallant Friend refers. No authority is given to Post Office staff to demand the production of trade union membership cards. The only case in which I can imagine the staff inspecting such a card is where a counter clerk feels it necessary, as a safeguard against fraud or misrepresentation, to seek some evidence of identity in connection with certain transactions, such as a withdrawal from the savings bank, handing over of poste restante correspondence, and the payment of money orders and postal drafts. In such circumstances, the production of a trade union membership card is one of the methods by which a person may choose to establish his identity. Otherwise no Post Office staff should have any reason to inspect such a card.

Major Lloyd: Will my hon. Friend give instructions to some of his officials not to issue statements to the Press to the effect that they would have the right to call upon all kinds of evidence, including trade union lodge membership cards, as proof of identity? Not only are such statements misleading but they are also entirely contrary to the principles of British freedom.

Mr. Gammans: If I find that there is any general ambiguity on the subject, I shall be only too pleased to issue an instruction.

Mr. Black: Will my hon. Friend also make it clear that trade union membership is not required as a condition of employment in the Post Office?

Telegram (Delayed Delivery)

Mr. C. R. Hobson: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General (1) if he will consider an ex gratia payment of £20 being made to the Metropolitan Police Rugby Club in part payment of expenses incurred through the delay in London of delivery of telegram No. 000093 on 26th January, 1952;
(2) why a telegram, No. 000093, sent from Bleasby NG on 26th January, 1952, at 8.37 a.m., and recorded in London at 8.46 a.m., was not delivered to Great Scotland Yard until 11.20 a.m.

Mr. Gammans: With the hon. Member's permission, I will answer Questions 41 and 42 together.

Mr. Hobson: I desire my Questions to be answered separately, because they deal with two different issues.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member withholds his permission for the two Questions to be answered together.

Mr. Gammans: I shall be pleased to read the same answer twice, if the hon. Gentleman prefers that.
My noble Friend much regrets the inconvenience caused to the club by the delay in delivery of their telegram: this arose because the telegram was accidentally sent to the wrong delivery office. The Postmaster-General is not liable for loss sustained in connection with telegrams, and, moreover, when the margin of time is very short, as it was in this case, it is desirable to use the priority service or the telephone. Nevertheless, my noble Friend is arranging in the exceptional circumstances to make an ex gratia payment to the club of £20.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEVISION (INTERFERENCE SUPPRESSORS)

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General when it is proposed to issue an order requiring new motorcars to be fitted with interference suppressors.

Mr. Gammans: A Regulation is now in preparation.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Can my hon. Friend say when the Regulation which is in preparation will be issued? This matter has been hanging fire for two or three years. I prompted his predecessor on two or three occasions and hoped for some action rather more quickly than this.

Mr. Gammans: As this is a very technical question, my noble Friend proposes to refer it to the Advisory Committee before laying it before the House. However, I can assure my hon. Friend that most large manufacturers of cars are already fitting suppressors to new cars without waiting for any Regulations.

Mr. Langford-Holt: If I remember aright, was not the matter referred to the Advisory Committee over a year ago? Has my hon. Friend not yet had the report?

Mr. Gammans: It has been referred to the Advisory Committee, but the Advisory Committee have asked my noble Friend if they could see the Regulation before it is laid before the House, and, in view of the technical nature of the subject, my noble Friend felt that that was a very wise precaution to take.

Mr. Hobson: Is it not a fact that all the technical data required for the fitting of the suppressors was already known, and many public undertakings, including the whole of the London Transport Board, have had their vehicles fitted already? Why does the hon. Gentleman not take the necessary action and put the Regulations before the House?

Mr. Erroll: As new cars coming on to the home market are so fitted, could the Regulations have any effect in their present form, and would it not be better to extend the new Order to cover any such cars not already fitted?

Mr. Gammans: My noble Friend is trying to see to what extent this can be done as the result of propaganda. We have no reason to be dissatisfied with the results made public.

Oral Answers to Questions — REGENCY ACTS

Sir R. Glyn: asked the Prime Minister whether he will introduce an amending Bill to the Regency Acts, 1937 and 1943, at an early date.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): These important matters are under consideration but I have no statement to make at present.

Sir R. Glyn: Can my right hon. Friend say when it will be convenient to ask a Question at a later date when an answer can be given, in view of the public anxiety on this matter?

The Prime Minister: I was not aware there is public anxiety, and I am not in a position to name a date when my hon. Friend could renew his Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRIES OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: asked the Prime Minister what steps he is taking to amalgamate the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Food.

The Prime Minister: None, Sir. As the hon. and gallant Member knows, the Lord President of the Council maintains the general concert of food and agriculture policy and ensures their full coordination.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is this proposal being abandoned, because if it goes Lord Woolton will have nothing to co-ordinate except his own denials at the Election, as in the case of the food subsidies?

The Prime Minister: That is rather an elaborate rigmarole to express a discourteous sentiment.

Mr. George Chetwynd: Is the Lord President of the Council too busily engaged eating his own words uttered at the Election to have any time to spare for this matter?

The Prime Minister: It is not for me to raise the question of discourtesy to a member of another place.

Oral Answers to Questions — VICTORIA CROSS (HONORARIUM)

Mr. Edwin Leather: asked the Prime Minister whether, while acknowledging that the honorarium paid to holders of the Victoria Cross bears no relation to the fame of that decoration, he will consider an increase in that honorarium.

The Prime Minister: It is not proposed to make any change at the present time.

Mr. Leather: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that it would be no more than justice to raise this particular honorarium at least to allow for the depreciation of its value, and that the cost involved to the country would be very small in comparison with an act of justice and generosity?

The Prime Minister: It is quite true that the pecuniary award attached to the grant of the Victoria Cross has no relation whatever to the fame of the deed for which it is awarded, and the actual assessment would be very difficult to make. Certainly for many years this discrepancy has existed, and I am not sure that this is the moment for us to make a change.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

Ex-Regulars (Government Employment)

Mr. Martin Lindsay: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence whether he appreciates the stimulus to recruiting which would result from the reserving of suitable Government employment, for example, in the Post Office and in the nationalised industries, for Service men on completion of their term of Regular engagement; and whether he will consult with the Minister of Labour as to its practicability.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence (Mr. Nigel Birch): The Advisory Council on the relation between employment in the Services and civilian life has given much thought to this question, and substantial progress has been made on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Lindsay: Is my hon. Friend aware that that information is very gratifying indeed?

N.A.T.O. (Turkish and Greek Forces)

Mr. Philips Price: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence what arrangements he has agreed to for the command of the Turkish and Greek land, sea and air forces in connection with the entry of those two countries into the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation for the defence of the Western Mediterranean.

Mr. Birch: The ground and air forces of Turkey and Greece assigned to N.A.T.O. will operate under the overall command of the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, through Admiral Carney, the Commander - in - Chief, Southern Europe. The details of the command arrangements are now under consideration in S.H.A.P.E.
Turkish and Greek naval forces will remain for the present under their national Chiefs of Staff, pending a solution of the Mediterranean Command problem, which is still under discussion by the Standing Group of N.A.T.O. Meanwhile Turkish and Greek naval Forces are working in close co-operation with the naval Forces of other N.A.T.O. Powers in the Mediterranean.

Mr. Price: Is there not a possibility that the Turkish and Greek Forces may come under the command of an Italian Admiral and would not that be a rather unwise procedure?

Mr. Birch: I do not think that will happen. I would rather not comment further because the matter is under international negotiation.

Mr. Shinwell: Does the Parliamentary Secretary apprecate that some hon. Members will take offence if the whole of the Mediterranean naval command is transferred to naval officers other than those who represent the United Kingdom? Could I have an answer to that?

Mr. Birch: The right hon. Gentleman is an authority on offence.

Mr. Shinwell: Does the Parliamentary Secretary appreciate that I put a perfectly reasonable question, which emerged out of the debates we have had in this House? Moreover, does he understand that the question of transferring the whole of the Mediterranean naval command, including Turkish and Greek naval Forces, to the United States naval chiefs has been canvassed, and that that is precisely what I am anxious to avoid?

Mr. Birch: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the matter is under negotiation.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it appropriate, Mr. Speaker, for the Parliamentary Secretary, when a Member puts a Question, to cast a slur on the Member by speaking of him as being offensive?

Mr. Speaker: I did not hear that said.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Birch: rose—

Colonel Alan Gomme-Duncan: Is it not perfectly clear that my hon. Friend said "defence" and not "offence"?

Mr. H. Hynd: Is it not the case that the Parliamentary Secretary got up to withdraw and was told by his boss to sit down again?

Mr. Speaker: For my part, I did not hear the word "offensive" used. I thought some reference was made to defence, but I could not hear it properly. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ask the hon. Member


what he said."] In the circumstances I think I had better ask the hon. Member what he did say.

Mr. Birch: I did use the word "offence" and I certainly withdraw it.

Oral Answers to Questions — TINNED STEAK (EXPORT)

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: asked the Minister of Food whether he will reconsider the permission given to export tinned steak from Manchester to Canada and other countries in view of the shortage of meat in this country.

The Minister of Food (Major Lloyd George): No, Sir. Relatively little meat is used in these exports, and it would be wrong to stop a trade which is contributing to our dollar earnings.

Mr. Brockway: In view of the shortage of meat in this country, does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not regard it as a mad course that meat should be tinned in Manchester and sent to Canada, where there is meat in abundance?

Major Lloyd George: As the hon. Gentleman knows, a great many things which are in short supply are exported for the sake of our trade balance, and in this instance the amount involved is infinitesimal. The reason for exporting it is that it gets us in dollars very much more than its value as a raw material. To give the hon. Gentleman an idea of what it involves, the amount of meat issued per week in this country is about 21,500 tons, and the amount involved in this particular trade is 70.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this is what his noble superior meant when he made his red meat promise?

Oral Answers to Questions — BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTION

AGRICULTURE (PRODUCTIVITY)

Major H. Legge-Bourke: I beg to give notice that, on Friday, 4th April, I shall call attention to the need to encourage even higher productivity in the British farming industry by giving to all concerned in it real confidence in an expanding long-term policy, and move a Resolution.

DISABLED WORKMEN (BENEFIT RATES)

Mr. David Griffiths: I beg to give notice that, on Friday, 4th April, I shall call attention to the inadequacy of the weekly rates of workmen's compensation and pension payable to workmen disabled as a result of accident or disease arising out of or in the course of their employment, and move a Resolution.

WOMEN (EQUAL PAY)

Mr. Michael Stewart: I beg to give notice that, on Friday, 4th April, I shall call attention to the case for equal pay for women in the public service, and move a Resolution.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[The Prime Minister.]
Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES (MEMBERSHIP OF TRADE UNIONS)

3.33 p.m.

Mr. I. Mikardo: I beg to move,
That leave be given to introduce a Bill entitled the Nationalised Industries (Membership of Trade Unions) Bill, to prohibit the payment of money by the boards of nationalised industries to certain organisations which prohibit their members from being members of trade unions.
I have every hope that the objectives of the Bill will prove to be non-controversial since my action in proposing this Motion is supported by hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House, and the Bill, if leave be given to present it, will be sponsored by hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House. On this side of the House it is supported by hon. Friends of mine who have given many long years of most distinguished service to the trade union movement, the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Viant) and the hon. Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Wallace). On the other side of the House it is supported by the hon. Members for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. R. Harris), and Somerset, North (Mr. Leather). I desire to express my grati-


tude to all those hon. Gentlemen for their encouragement and support.
I have no doubt that there will be hon. Members who will be surprised to discover that in this enlightened age there exists an organisation which debars from membership and from receiving the benefits of membership persons on no ground other than that those persons are trade unionists. In view of the fact that on many occasions in this House universal tributes are paid from all sides to the trade union movement, to its stability, to its high morale and to its great value to our national economy, it will be surprising no doubt to some hon. Members to discover that there is an organisation which considers membership of a trade union to be incompatible with membership of itself. Those members—and there are some on both sides of the House—who have been vocal in condemning what is called the principle of the closed shop, will, in particular, I am sure, condemn the operation of what is, in fact, a closed shop in reverse, a shop which is closed to members of the trade union movement.
I can describe the point of the Bill quite briefly. In the engineering industry there is an organisation called the Foremen and Staffs Mutual Benefit Society, which gives considerable sickness and other benefits to those employees of certain federated firms who are foremen, or of comparable grade, or above it. Their funds are financed partly by payments from the members and partly by a substantial subsidy from the employers.
Any employee of appropriate rank can become a member of the organisation and receive its benefits on two provisos, first, that he is nominated for membership, not by another member of the organisation, but by his employer, and, second, that he is not and will undertake not to become a member of a trade union. Indeed, in the constitution of this society, Clause 7 reads as follows:
Members of a trade union either registered or unregistered shall not be proposed as ordinary members of the society, and if any ordinary member becomes a member of a trade union either registered or unregistered he shall thereupon cease to be a member of this society.
This is a sort of closed shop. It is a piece of sheer discrimination against trade unionists. No trade unionist can join the fund, and anybody who is a

member of the fund and thereafter joins a union loses his membership, and loses, at the same time, all his accumulated benefits as a member. I would add—and I am sorry to have to add this—that there are cases on record of firms in which men are not promoted to foreman rank unless they are members of this fund, that is to say, unless they are not trade unionists; in other words, trade unionists are ipso facto debarred from promotion.
The Trades Union Congress has concerned itself with the injustices of this arrangement for many years. As long ago as the annual congress of 1923, a resolution against the discrimination enforced in this body's constitution was moved by the Amalgamated Engineering Union and seconded by the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation. It was supported by members of other unions, such as draughtsmen, distributive workers, railwaymen and marine workers, and it was carried by a large majority.
I will not weary the House by going through the whole of this history, but will come to recent times. A similar resolution was carried in 1942. The General Council has further reported on the matter at the annual congresses of 1943, 1944, 1946, and 1947. In 1944 also, the Non-Manual Workers Advisory Council of the General Council of the Trades Union Congress, at its annual meeting, passed a similar resolution, and in 1946 the 53 trades councils all over the country went on record in the same way.
Finally, the General Council of the trade union movement as a whole has not found it easy to deal with this highly complex problem. It is obvious that there are many difficulties in the way of legislating on a subject covering the whole field of British industry, but, following the nationalisation of a number of industries since the war, a quite new situation has arisen. A number of firms which incorporate the membership of this society have been taken over by nationalised industries, notably electricity and steel. We have now reached the situation in which public bodies are paying from public funds money to subsidise an avowedly anti-trade union organisation.
It may be argued with respect to private employers that they can do what they like with their own money, but everybody will find it repugnant that public bodies should


subsidise an organisation out of public funds which discriminates against trade unionists in this way. This Bill aims at preventing the corporations of the nationalised industries from financing or assisting to finance an anti-trade union body. I hope that this worthy objective will have the unanimous support of the House.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. I. Mikardo, Mr. S. P. Viant, Mr. Harry Wallace, Mr. Reader Harris, Mr. Geoffrey Bing, and Mr. Edwin Leather.

NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES (MEMBERSHIP OF TRADE UNIONS) BILL

"to prohibit the payment of money by the boards of nationalised industries to certain organisations which prohibit their members from being members of trade unions," presented accordingly, and read the First time to be read a Second time upon Friday, 4th April, and to be printed. [Bill 66.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[7TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLE- MENTARY ESTIMATE, 1951–52

CLASS IX

VOTE 17. TIN

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £4,092,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for expenditure of the Ministry of Materials for the purchase, storage and handling of tin for sale to the Government of the United States of America.

TIN SUPPLIES

3.42 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Edelman: rose—

Mr. John Grimston: On a point of order. Was I not on my feet first, Sir Charles?

The Chairman: Perhaps, but the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) caught my eye.

Mr. Edelman: I welcome the opportunity of continuing the debate on this Estimate because it gives the Committee an opportunity of considering in some detail this first major essay in bulk trading by the Government, and I hope to show that not only has it been completely unsuccessful but, if it is an example of the manner in which the Government are to carry on with policies of bulk trade, I suggest that the sooner the Government desist the better.
A short time ago I asked the Secretary for Overseas Trade what profit or loss he expected as a result of this transaction in tin which forms part of the more general transactions by which we bought steel from the United States and allowed them in exchange quantities of aluminium, lead and tin. In this transaction we undertook to sell to the United States 20,000 tons of tin at the fixed price of £944 a


long ton, and we undertook to make these quantities available irrespective of the future course of the tin market. That is the point I want to emphasise.
As was to be expected, no sooner had we entered into this undertaking than the price of tin on the world markets immediately rose, so that today the price of tin is in the region of £975 a ton and it seems likely that this figure will continue to rise, despite fluctuations, until, in due course, it reaches a figure higher than £1,000 a ton. When I asked the Secretary for Overseas Trade what the cash result of the transaction was likely to be, he said that he was unable to give any figure because he was unable to say what would be the specification of tin which he expected to sell, nor could he say in which market he expected to find the tin which he intended to deliver to America.
It seems to me that this was an utterly irresponsible transaction which did not do justice to the British taxpayer, who will be expected to foot the difference between the price at which we sold the tin to the Americans and the price at which we shall be able to acquire the tin on world markets. Although the hon. Gentleman was unable to give any estimate of the probable loss which this transaction will entail, I will venture to submit to him an estimate of what that loss will be. I estimate that before the complete delivery of those 20,000 tons to the United States, the burden the British taxpayer will have to pay will be in the region of £1 million. That £1 million will not be a subsidy to any domestic consumer; it will be a parallel subsidy to the American consumer on the one hand and to the Malayan supplier on the other.
If it were just a question of price, if the British taxpayer were merely to be penalised by a subsidy which he will have to give to those overseas interests, it might he tolerable because of certain other invisible benefits which, according to the Secretary for Overseas Trade, are likely to accrue from the general deal which we have concluded with the Americans. However, there is something much more serious than that. It is that to make delivery of this total of 20,000 tons of tin to the United States, we are to deliver a substantial quantity of tin from stock. In fact, I understand that during February and during the current month our

total deliveries from stock to the United States will be of the order of 6,000 tons.
Now 6,000 tons may seem a relatively small quantity but it is a substantial quantity of vital interest to British industry because the total stocks which we normally carry are about 12,000 tons, which represents an industrial consumption of approximately six months. If we are running down our strategic stocks, if we have to denude our own domestic supplies by 50 per cent. of what we normally hold, I submit that our own industry will be placed in extreme jeopardy by this transaction.
If, for example, the situation in Malaya took a sudden turn for the worse, which we trust will never happen; if we found ourselves involved in difficulties in obtaining tin from those sources, we should find that because our own strategic stocks of tin had run down we had deliberately deprived ourselves of vital resources in order to complete the transaction referred to in this Estimate.
I do not suggest for a moment that there is no intended merit in this transaction. Indeed, I recognise that there is substantial advantage to be obtained from the sale of tin which will bring us much needed dollars. But if that argument is advanced—and it was advanced by the Secretary for Overseas Trade—it is no use maintaining the further argument that this transaction for tin is part of an overall transaction in which we exchange our tin for steel. The fact is that we have not exchanged the tin for steel. We are to pay for that steel in dollars. We are to pay for the million tons of steel, which the Prime Minister bought when he was in America, with dollars, of which our earnings in the sale of tin will be an element.
I submit, therefore, that we have to consider this sale of tin entirely on its merits. It seems to me that from every point of view we shall be losing as a result of the undertaking which has been given to sell the tin at a loss. There can be no doubt about it—in fact, the Secretary for Overseas Trade admitted it—and there can be no merit whatever in selling this tin at a loss to the United States. It will threaten and endanger our industry at home.
The amount of dollars which it is likely to yield will be relatively small, compared with what we are to pay to the


Americans for the steel which we buy from them. Consequently, it seems quite clear that there is little to be gained, and very much to lose, from this transaction.
I have spoken already of the difficulties which have existed in the past few months in connection with the sale of tin because of the buyers' strike in which the United States has engaged through the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. As is well known, not very long ago a Senate sub-committee suggested that the tin suppliers of Malaya were gouging the United States—that is the picturesque word which they used—and exacting exorbitant prices for a commodity which was necessary for the United States defence programme.
They advanced their argument when the price of tin had risen to something like £1,600 per ton, and there is no doubt that at the time there had been considerable profiteering in the sale of tin on the free market. For those reasons, it was quite legitimate for the Americans to complain of the extravagant prices which they were being obliged to pay. As a result of their holding off, as a result of their restraint from buying, the price of tin came down and consequently, in due course, it reached a relatively normal price; and from the point of view of the actual cost of production, and the selling price which was being charged, the Americans could make little just complaint.
Despite that fact, the Reconstruction Finance Corporation persisted with its refusal, on the one side, to buy tin directly from Malaya, and the Malayan tin producers, on the other side, showed extreme and, in my view, quite unjustified reluctance to associate their tin production with the work of the International Materials Conference. The direct result of their refusal, on the one hand, and the buyers' strike of the Americans, on the other, was that a complete and artificial disorder was introduced into the tin market, with which the Estimate now before the Committee directly deals.
We have reached a position, as far as tin is concerned, in which the Americans, to save face—that can be the only reason for their request to the British Government as such to intervene as brokers in this transaction—have come to the British Government who have, quite unjustifiably, agreed to act as brokers in

this transaction, with the result that the only people who will suffer will be the British taxpayer and the British industrialist.
This question of tin illustrates a much wider question to which the Estimate has reference; that is, that the semi-barter arrangement into which the Prime Minister entered when he was in America, by which this transfer of steel from the one side, and tin, aluminium and lead from the other side, should point the way to something considerably more important: that is, that what we require as between ourselves and the United States during our present difficulties is a common pool of resources. As things stand, whereas the Americans have had the acumen to sell their steel at a fixed price, which will bring them a guaranteed profit, we have been jockeyed into the very unfavourable position in which we have had to engage in these transactions at a certain and inevitable loss.
If the Secretary for Overseas Trade is going to say that it would be impossible for him to gauge the future trends of the market, I would invite him merely to look at the graph of prices of the past year. There, he would see that for the last six months or so the price of tin has rarely, if ever, fallen below the price at which the Government have sold the 20,000 tons of tin to the United States. Consequently, little economic perspicacity is needed to recognise that the price of £944 a ton was seriously disadvantageous to this country.
Therefore, I ask the hon. Gentleman whether, even at this late stage, it is not possible for him to address himself to the United States and to invite them to introduce into this transaction a rise and fall clause which would save the British taxpayer from what is likely to be the very unpleasant necessity of subsidising foreign trade in the way I have outlined.
I have spoken about a common pool of resources. I hope that a serious lesson will be learnt from the demerits of this transaction. That lesson should be that the International Materials Conference is an organisation full of promise and one which has already brought order into various commodities in which we have to deal; and if the tin producers of Malaya and Her Majesty's Government will try to arrange, together with the United States, to bring the tin producers into the International Materials Conference,


we can hope that there will be a stable market from which both we, the Americans and the Malayan tin producers will all benefit.

3.58 p.m.

Mr. John Grimston: These debates always seem to introduce a good deal of criticism of the policy of the United States Government and, generally, very little understanding of it. It seems to me that the real benefit of the tin agreement is that it broke a deadlock which had existed for two years and which had prevented the United States from acquiring tin which we have and which we were anxious to sell because of our stock position.
There is no need for the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman), to bolster up his case by failing to compare like with like. He says that today's price of tin is £975 a ton, but he is, of course, giving a price for tin delivered in this country, whereas the price quoted in the agreement is loaded on to the ship at Singapore if we wish it to be there. Therefore, the disparity in price is not between £944 and £975 a ton, a difference of £31; the difference today is much nearer £7 or £8 a ton. Consequently, the amount of money at present at risk, which was quite freely admitted by my hon. Friend the Secretary for Overseas Trade, is very much less than the hon. Member for Coventry, North, would have us believe.
I believe that even the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) joined in the chorus which criticised the commercial policies of the United States when he said that the United States were stockpiling on much too heavy a scale, but he will know perfectly well that the United States stockpile has been built up to a very large degree by obtaining supplies which would not otherwise have been obtainable. In zinc, for example, he must know that they built up their stockpile from about 1946 onwards.
It seems to me that we have a greater interest than anyone else that the deadlock to which I have referred should have been broken. We are interested not so much in the profit on one transaction, but in the continuing trade and steady flow of business and currency to this country.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: The hon. Gentleman says that this stock is not located in this country. Did not my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) make the point that some was in this country and that it had been taken out of stock? Will not shipping charges therefore have something to do with the price?

Mr. Grimston: Under the agreement it is at our option whether we supply from this country or from the Far East and, therefore, the price would clearly relate to which it was cheaper for us, at the time, to supply.

Mr. Edelman: Is it not the case that 6,000 tons have been sent from here to New York and that the greater part of it was bought at the prevailing very high prices, much of it over £1,000 per ton, which ruled last year?

Mr. Grimston: The hon. Gentleman must have sources of information which are not open to other hon. Members, because when anyone asks at what price these stocks were bought, the answer is invariably that it is not possible, in a continuing business, to say at what price any one particular parcel was obtained.
The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Fienburgh), as well as the hon. Member for Coventry, North, suggested that this transaction was evidence of a conversion by the Tory Party to the advantage of bulk buying. Let me assure him that it is nothing of the kind. It is simply an admission, which I thought was common ground between all parties, that when we are in a heavy re-armament programme we should share out these scarce materials rather than have Allies bidding one against the other and putting up the price. That is the whole basis of the International Materials Conference, in which the hon. Member for Coventry, North, takes a very great interest.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Bulk buying.

Mr. Grimston: The right hon. Gentleman says it is bulk buying, but I should have thought it was the kind of conduct which all parties would agree that, in a re-armament programme or indeed, in war, was a sensible course to take. No one was committed to it more strongly than was my right hon. Friend who is now the Colonial Secretary, when he was


Controller of Non-Ferrous Metals at the beginning of the last war.
When the negotiators at the International Materials Conference recommend a price for tin, in an agreement such as this, they must clearly have comparison with prices obtained for other similar products, and clearly the product which would be most in their minds when they were dealing with tin would be the other major non-ferrous metal, copper. The 1938 price for copper, in cents. per pound, multiplied by 2.7, comes to today's controlled price for copper. The 1938 price for tin, multiplied by the same figure, 2.7, comes to 1 dollar 18 cents. per pound.
Consequently, if we accept, as I think we all do, that the International Materials Conference and the sharing out of scarce metals is a good thing, then there can be no criticism of the figure of 1 dollar 18 cents. per pound which was finally agreed, because it bears relation to the other prices which are controlled, in the case of copper predominantly by the American Government.
When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister went to America he was confronted with a great many statements about the very strong position which had been adopted by high American officials, and if he were to break the deadlock he had to establish some basis from which to negotiate. Consequently, a basis which bore the same relationship to two major non-ferrous metals—the relationship between their current price and their pre-war price—would seem to be as good a basis as any from which to negotiate.
Hon. Members opposite, who are interested in the International Materials Conference, need be under no misapprehension. American officials feel that they have been much more generous in their sharing of scarce materials than we have, and they always point to tin and wool, two products which we control and which we have so far refused to share on an International Materials Conference basis.
It seems to me that the price of 1 dollar 18 cents. has one further great advantage—it has introduced some stability into the tin market. Indeed, we have seen in the Press today that it has led the way to a similar agreement between the United States and Indonesia, under which the United States are paying, and Indonesia are receiving, the same price

as that which we agreed. Great benefit will accrue to these territories, in which hon. Members in all parts of the Committee are very much interested.
There is a danger, too, in very high prices. A relatively higher price than that of other metals would be against the long-term interest of tin itself, and equally against our own long-term interest. High prices mean very high profits in the short run, but they also encourage the use of substitutes—and tin is a metal for which there are many substitutes and in the case of which there has always been unusual pressure to discover further substitutes. Consequently, I think we can say that it is in the long-term interest of Malaya, as well as of this country, that this agreement has been reached.
I have one criticism to voice on which I should like my hon. Friend to comment, although I do not think anything can be done about it at the moment. The shipment of this tin, with the exception of one shipment, is being done entirely in American ships. Traditionally it has been done in our shipping, and I hope that in any further agreements, or in any extension of this agreement, provision will be made, if possible, for delivery to be made c.i.f. American ports so that we should control the shipping.
In view of past history and of the position adopted by top men, we must recognise that, on the whole, the agreement is satisfactory. The part I like best is that which occurs at the bottom of the page, in paragraph (6), where it says that
…it is the desire of both parties that more normal arrangements for the conduct of this trade should be established as soon as possible.
That is the most important statement to have put into this agreement.

4.8 p.m.

Mr. Jack Jones: I want to say a few words about this tin transaction. When the Prime Minister came back from America, he was hailed because he had made arrangements whereby this country was to get a million tons of steel. On the face of it that looked like many other Tory proposals, an extremely good thing; but, like many other Tory proposals, as time went on it was found not to be quite so good as it appeared at first sight.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman),


that the loss of dollars, which will have to be borne by our people, is a serious matter, but I also want to ask this: was the tin transaction a good transaction so far as our steel industry is concerned? I suggest that it was not a good transaction at all. We have the spectacle of 6,000 tons of one of our most precious strategic materials leaving the country, not only at a time when we are talking about re-armament but also when agricultural interests, which are represented mainly on the benches opposite, are crying out for more sheet tin for canning fruit and vegetables. Probably my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. P. Wells) will have something to say about that, as it affects his constituency.
There is, however, also the question of the payment of dollars for this steel. This is a fantastic arrangement. In this country—in my constituency and in Sheffield, Middlesbrough and South Wales—we have steel-making plant which is not being used. Men and works are standing idle. I respectfully suggest to the Ministry of Supply and to the other Ministries concerned that it would have been a far better thing had the Prime Minister used some practical "nous," as we say in the North, or practical common sense, and looked at the position in which we found ourselves.
Here we have the spectacle of scrap being trans-shipped all the way from Germany to America; iron-ore being trans-shipped all the way from Spain and Sweden to America; being loaded, transshipped, unloaded again, converted into ingots, some of which are already proving to be not very good metal—I have received some evidence about that in the last few days—and then trans-shipped back to this country.
How much better would it have been to have used a much less quantity of tin to earn sufficient dollars to pay for the raw materials. Our men in this country could have worked them, and we could have obtained the conversion value; and, in addition, have been able to supply our own people, knowing our own demands, with the types of steel they require.
I consider that the whole transaction requires looking at again and, if it is not too late, it should be amended. That would result in great benefits, not only to

the people of this country but to trade and industry at a time when re-armament imposes such a huge demand on our steel supplies.

4.10 p.m.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: I should like to hear from the Ministry what progress has been made in the discussion of this and similar transactions with the American Government and with other Governments concerned.
It seems that the violent fluctuations in the price of these necessary commodities does no country any good. It does Australia little good to get an inflated price for primary commodities, if, in the course of a few months, there is a recession which results in a contraction of trade, with deleterious effects upon our exports. The gain leads to a loss, in this case in terms of our civil economy, textiles, pottery, and so on, which have to be cut down because Australia has exchange and balance of payments difficulties.
Australia was able to get very inflated prices for wool, and South-East Asia very high prices for tin and rubber. Then, suddenly, there was a recession which put the whole economy out of balance. I agree with the view that in these matters, which are so vital, not only to our rearmament programme, but to our civil economy, it should be our aim, where there is a shortage of supplies, to get an agreement which would enable us to get reasonable shares at fair prices. May we be told what has happened in that connection?

4.14 p.m.

Mr. S. N. Evans: We all agree it would be a good thing if we could contrive some kind of international agreement regarding these primary products. But, meanwhile, it is not unreasonable for us to expect our American friends to be rather more fair. I do not accept what has been said about the undesirability of discussing Anglo-American commercial relations with freedom.
We are having to pay about four times the cost of production for cotton, and that is on a free market. If we complain, it is said, "That is the mechanism of the market at work. The price of an article is what it will fetch. That is the system


we believe in. We are sorry, but we cannot do anything about it." But when it comes to sterling area primary products, in this case tin, a buyer's strike is staged for about 12 months. During the whole of that time Mr. Symington's "barrow boys" were buying up odd lots all over the non-sterling area.
Then the Government enter into a fantastic agreement which has no relation at all for the financial plight in which we find ourselves. Surely, having regard to the respective financial strength of the two countries, it is a most fantastic thing that the British taxpayer should have to subsidise American manufacturers using Malayan tin.

Mr. J. Grimston: Does the hon. Gentleman' think it unfair that we should have to pay two-and-three-quarter times the pre-war price for American copper, and the Americans should have to pay two-and-three-quarter times the pre-war price for British tin? Does not he think the two transactions perfectly fair to both parties?

Mr. Evans: No. What I am saying is that the Americans should make up their minds. I know that there are certain elements in America who are fighting two wars—one against Communism and the other against the sterling area. Which they regard as the more important is not quite clear. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"] What I am saying is that they should make up their minds. When we come into the American markets for supplies, they demand that we must put up with the mechanism of the market, the system under which the price of an article is what it will fetch.
That is the system in which they say they believe and to which they make us adhere. On the other hand, in the matter of sterling area traditional dollar earners they themselves fix the price. I say that that is something which cannot be allowed to go on if there is to be the happy Anglo-American relationship which we all desire.
I support hon. Members who have urged that attempts should be made to bring about international agreement in these matters. Meanwhile, I ask the Government to point out to our American friends that conduct of the kind which governs this tin transaction can only have the effect of increasing our dollar prob-

lems. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If they insist that we pay the price fixed by the market, we, in turn, are entitled to expect that they will be prepared to abide by the same principle.

4.18 p.m.

Mr. Peter Roberts: I cannot let the remarks of the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans) go without challenge. He said that the Americans are trying to carry on a battle against the sterling area. I am sure that all hon. Members on both sides of the Committee realise how much the United States have done to bolster up the sterling area and the currency of this country. What they are doing about further American loans also shows that.
I wish to refer to the purchase and storage, etc., of tin and the figure of £7,830,000 less appropriations-in-aid, and to ask the Minister whether he can give me some information. We have heard a great deal about this transaction with America and the sale of tin at various prices. But in answer to me today, the Minister has shown that in the year ended December, 1951, the following tonnages of tin were supplied to what one might term the Iron curtain countries: 1,800 tons to the Soviet Union; 200 tons to Poland; 200 tons to Yugoslavia; and over 700 tons to China.
Would it be possible for the Minister to say what were the prices in those transactions, assuming that I am right in thinking that they came out of this purchase and storage amounting to over £7 million? If he can give us some idea of what these transactions are, we should then be able to judge them in the light of the criticisms we have heard from the other side of the Committee.
At this stage I cannot talk about future policy. All I can say is that we are so short of tinplate that we need all that we can get for the canning of our own materials here at home. When I see that over 3,000 tons of this precious metal is being sent to China and to other countries who follow policies which are designed to undermine our economy, it fills me with a certain amount of trepidation.
I hope that the Minister will give some idea of the prices involved in these transactions. Although I cannot now ask for an assurance that we shall not have to


put up with the same state of affairs under the present Government, I hope to raise this question on another occasion.

4.21 p.m.

Dr. Barnett Stross: I hope that the Minister will accede to the request of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Heeley (Mr. P. Roberts) and give details of the export of tin to countries behind the Iron Curtain and to China. Perhaps the reason I augment his request is not entirely the same as that which actuated him in making it. I believe that we should trade throughout the whole world and that nothing but good can come from selling tin wherever we can find a market at a reasonable price.

Mr. P. Roberts: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that we need the tin at home?

Dr. Stross: I can say at once what the hon. Gentleman has so often said to us, that we, too, need to live. We must import certain goods and to do that we must export.
I should be out of order if I went too far, but earlier today we heard a defence of the export of tinned steak from Manchester to Canada. The transaction under discussion relates to selling tin rather cheaply, as it appears, to the United States market at a time when we appear to be buying steel rather dearly from the same source. As there are about 2,000 steel workers in my constituency, it is fair that I should refer, after the reference by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones), to the need for having more scrap and the avoidance of transshipment.
We heard the statement by an hon. Member opposite that the United States are still making loans to us and that we ought to bear that in mind. I am sure that we do. We must carefully consider all the past generous actions of the American people. There is nobody on either side of the Committee who does not remember that.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Will my hon. Friend also bear in mind that Mr. Stettinius said that the loans bought time with the lives of the British people?

Dr. Stross: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
None the less, we are faced with the fact that loans from the United States earmarked for our assistance, not only here but in Western Europe, are essentially and specifically to be earmarked, in the main, only for re-armament purposes. Our economic situation makes it difficult for us to understand why the richest country in the world seeks a bargain from another country upon which in the past it had to depend so much and upon which it must still depend today.
The British taxpayer in subsidising, as he would appear to do, the American businessman in this transaction must find himself in a quandary. On the one hand, we seek aid, and, on the other, we find that we are giving assistance. We do not deplore this, nor do we deny it. We are willing to do it, if we can afford to. We ask the Minister whether he thinks that the Government were really well advised on the terms of this commercial transaction. If he feels that there was no other way out, if he feels that such pressure was brought to bear that no better terms could be had, it is not for us to do more than voice our discontent and to say, "We are sorry to hear it, and we think we might ourselves have done somewhat better had we been on the Government benches."
The Minister shakes his head, but the country is bound to ask about this. It is difficult to understand why we have to subsidise the American businessman in this transaction. It is of some moment that the market is asked to be the deciding factor when, as it were, the boot is on the other foot. I hope that, in answering the debate, the Minister will give a clear indication of what pressure was brought to bear upon our people which made us agree to this type of assistance to the Americans.

4.26 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Osborne: I wait with interest to hear this transaction carefully explained. I want to emphasise the protest made by my hon. Friend the Member for Heeley (Mr. P. Roberts) at the bitter anti-Americanism that comes from the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans). In this he seems to be just about as wrong as he is in his attitude to farming. He said a dreadful thing. It was dreadful of him to say in this Committee


that there are responsible elements in America who are fighting two wars, one against the Communists and one against the sterling area—

Mr. S. N. Evans: It is true.

Mr. Osborne: —and that he is not sure whether they do not regard the sterling area as a greater enemy than the Communists. That is a shameful and disgraceful remark to make. I should like him to retract it. if there is to be any security for the civilisation in which he believes, and in which we believe, it will be provided only if the British and the Americans stand together.

Mr. Evans: That may be so, but my complaint is that the Anglo part of the Anglo-American relationship has become intellectually comatose. We had a demonstration of it from the benches opposite this afternoon. I regard this transaction as scandalous. I have said so, and I stand by what I said.

Mr. Osborne: That is not the point. Irrespective of whether this is a wise transaction or not, whether the deal is a good one or not—and we shall get the facts later—we have heard the usual type of argument that comes from the opposite side of the Committee. Whenever American affairs are discussed there is a spirit of enmity and hatred. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] It is not. It seems now that hon. Members opposite, having failed to get everyone to "go to the Left," as they hoped to in 1945, must turn bitterly anti-American.
It is because I believe that the future of the English way of life, as well as the American way of life, depends upon our mutual forbearance and understanding, that I regret so much that an hon. Member should make such a remark. I would remind him that, almost immediately afterwards, he said that he hoped that the happy Anglo-American atmosphere would continue. That is what we all want. He does not go a very good way about getting that happy atmosphere when he accuses responsible elements in America of hating the sterling area more than they hate Communism.

Mr. Evans: I did not say that. Hon. Members must quote me accurately. What I said, if the hon. Gentleman wants to know, is that certain elements in the United States are fighting two wars, one

against Communism and the other against the sterling area, and that which they regard as the more important is not yet clear.

Mr. Osborne: Taking that statement as it stands it seems that, in the hon. Member's mind, there are responsible people in the United States who may regard the sterling area as a greater enemy than the Communists.

The Chairman: I do not think that that matter arises on this Estimate.

Mr. Osborne: I only wanted to make my protest, Sir Charles, and that I have done.

4.31 p.m.

Mr. Percy Wells: I enter into this debate only for two or three minutes, not to criticise the United States, although I must say that I listened to those criticisms with much more tolerance and patience towards the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans) when he is talking on this subject than when he is talking about agricultural matters, about which of course, we are fairly well agreed—those of us who do know something about agriculture—that the hon. Member knows very little indeed.
To come to the matter now under discussion, what I am concerned about is that there are in my constituency a number of constituents who are unemployed because of the shortage of tinplate. That is bad enough, but what is worse is the fact that, owing to the reduction of 20 per cent. in the allocation which is to be given this season, there will be many tons of good fruit in my constituency that will not be picked, but will be wasted because canning facilities will not be available. At present, vegetables are already being wasted because of the lack of tinplate with which the industry is faced.
That being so, it is very difficult for me, and for those of my constituents who are concerned, to understand how it comes about that, at a time such as this, 20,000 tons of tin can be sent to the United States, and that, too, at a time when we are restricting imports of this type of food upon which we have relied to a very great extent to give us more variety in our diet. I therefore hope that the Minister will be able to give us some assurance that the question of the


reduction of 20 per cent. in the tin allocation to the canning industry will be looked into, because if he can give us some assurance that that will be done I am quite certain that he will win the thanks of the fruit growers not only in my constituency but in other fruit-growing areas throughout the country.

4.34 p.m.

Mr. Robson Brown: I had originally no intention of taking part in this debate, but I feel that it is necessary to correct an erroneous impression among hon. Members on both sides of the Committee who are confusing virgin block tin with tinplate.
While they are related commodities, I think it is correct to say that virgin block tin is in good and ample supply, as far as the sterling area is concerned, and is exercising no control on the production of tinplate. I think the Prime Minister was very wise, and showed extraordinarily good business acumen for a politician, in making the transaction over the sale of tin to the United States which he did and at the price at which he made it.
I put it to the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman), that I do not think he would like to go back to his constituents and tell them that difficulties were due to the storing of block tin in our warehouses when that material was in ample supply, and not giving the workshops of Coventry the raw steel necessary for their own production.

Mr. Edelman: The hon. Gentleman has missed my point. This is a question of block tin which we have exported to the United States from our own strategic stock. There has been a substantial rundown in our stocks, not only in regard to the defence programme but also for current industry, and, in attacking this transaction, I was, in fact, defending my constituents.

Mr. Robson Brown: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's sincerity in this matter, but if he suggests it is an alternative between carrying stocks of a material of which we have a substantial supply for strategic purposes and restrictions in steel, there is only one answer, which is the one I have already given.
Turning now to the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans) and his

indictment of the United States, the basis of his argument was that the United States believes in free trade and in the mechanism of the rise and fall of the flee market and the prices in a free market. Does he realise that the steel to be supplied by the United States, and negotiated by the Prime Minister, was sold at a fixed price, which was below the world market price, and substantially below it, so that we received a considerable financial concession thereby?

Mr. S. N. Evans: Was not the price something like £25 per ton in excess of the British price?

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Does the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Robson Brown) also agree that the price we are to pay for the steel is not a fixed price yet, but that it can be fixed at any time at what is called the controlled price, that the United States Government can alter that at any time and that, therefore, we do not know what the price will be?

Mr. Ellis Smith: What about quality, too?

Mr. Robson Brown: In reply to the question by the hon. Member for Wednesbury, the price of steel was a price above the British price, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman gives credit to British steel manufacturers as being still capable of making steel at a lower price than the rest of the world. I repeat that that price negotiated in the United States is substantially below the price that could have been obtained in the world market.
The implication of what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) said is that the United States will take advantage of the negotiations, or of any clause in the agreement, to put up the price substantially.

Mr. Strauss: I am not suggesting that, and I should not like that implication to go out. The price at which we have bought is the American internal controlled price. At some later time, at any time, in fact, we cannot say that we shall know what the price will be, because the American price could easily rise 5 or 10 per cent. during the course of a year. I am not suggesting that it would be done to take advantage of us, but that we do not know what the price is going to be.

Mr. Robson Brown: I would concede that argument to the right hon. Gentleman without question.
I come back to a very much more important matter, and I want to remind the Secretary for Overseas Trade that the United States are to receive immediate deliveries of tin, whereas we, on our part, are not by any means receiving immediate deliveries of steel. I think that, in the representations which he makes to the United States, there should be some suggestion for expediting the deliveries, in order to get some of these materials into those of our factories which are now working short time or are closed altogether and bring them into operation on re-armament.
I would add one other comment, and I say this deliberately. There is a feeling among some of us that the rapid expansion of the United States steel industry, both in its proportions and in its volume, may tend, and has, in fact, tended, to reflect itself upon the productive steel industry of this country, and particularly in matters of raw materials, such as scrap, iron ore and the like. The most generous offer they could make to us, and the most positive contribution they could make to our re-armament, and the general good will of the people of the countries of the West, would be for them to realise the right and opportunity of British steel to expand at a proper and balanced pace.

4.39 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I agree with the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Robson Brown) that it was necessary to make some clarification about block tin and tinplate. The impression has unquestionably got abroad among the people who are dependent on tinplate for their employment that they are being sacrificed to other considerations, such as exports, and, as this matter has not been ruled out of order, I want to say a word or two, because in my own constituency I have the same problem which arises in connection with the Ministry of Food, though it is not the direct concern of the hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench opposite.
We have not many fewer than 1,700 people unemployed at present. A firm which has had its allocation of tinplate cut down has been given no concession

by the Ministry of Food regarding restoring or increasing its allocation, though that would give a prospect of increasing unemployment and also the food supplies of the country. It is a small firm which could rapidly expand its supply of canned blood pudding. It also produces a fine quality product of canned tripe and onions. I am sure that the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne), for instance, realises that tinned tripe is much better than the variety thrown across the Floor of the Committee from the benches opposite.
This firm has applied, through myself and in other ways, for an additional allocation from two points of view: first, to extend the opportunities of employment among its own employees, and, second, to try to make a better contribution to our very necessary and scarce food supplies. All the ingredients of these two excellent dishes which they can are available locally, and if they are not canned they will simply go to waste.
I think that is a monstrous thing at this time, the more so because there is local unemployment there at the moment. Though I appreciate the difficulties about block tin and tinplate, the confusion has at least given me the opportunity of asking for further clarification on this matter in the interest of public morale, because the people in these areas are victims in the interest of exports.

Mr. Robson Brown: Would the hon. Gentleman be good enough to explain something which should be made clear to hon. Members? Tinplate is merely a thin sheet of steel coated with tin.

Mr. MacMillan: I quite appreciate the point. There was a time in my own capitalistic youth when I could have wished it were otherwise, when it was difficult to sell tin at a very much lower price than it is fetching today. Unfortunately, my interest in tin has passed with the passage of time. The hon. Gentleman's point is, of course, correct. I do not know the technicalities, but I know there is that difference. I am glad you did not rule my contribution to the debate out of order, Sir Charles, and I hope, as a result of it, to get a firm statement from the Minister on the subject.

4.43 p.m.

The Secretary for Overseas Trade (Mr. Henry Hopkinson): We have had about an hour's debate on this Estimate today and about an hour's debate on a previous occasion. The first time we debated the Estimate I gained the impression from the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) that this agreement was welcomed by all sections of the Committee. Indeed, I certainly believe that was the feeling on 21st February when, as I say, we first debated the matter. But today there seem to be some doubts in various quarters as to whether it is a good agreement or not, and, indeed, whether it should even have been made at all. I cannot help feeling that the first impression was the right one and that this agreement ought to be welcomed by all sections of this Committee and of the country.
I propose to try to reply to the points raised both in the previous debate and also in this debate this afternoon. But before I do so, I think it might be for the convenience of the Committee if after the lapse of nearly a month I were to say something about the way in which the transaction in regard to tin, which is the subject of this Estimate, is going. It is still too early to make any assessment of the final results, although we have no reason to believe that they will be unsatisfactory.
In reply to the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) and other hon. Members, I should like to quote what I said in the concluding passage of my speech when I introduced this Estimate on 21st February. I said:
In the end there may be a cash loss on the sale of tin, but this must not be taken for granted. In the opinion of the Government it would be far more than compensated by the arrangements my right hon. Friend was able to make for the supply of steel. There is also the fact that we have ensured an immediate flow of dollars for a commodity which is vitally important to the dollar balances of the sterling area, but which has not been earning dollars since the United States went out of the Malayan tin market."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st February, 1952; Vol. 496, c. 544.]

Mr. Edelman: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether the tin transaction was a definite quid pro quo for the steel transaction asked for by the United States?

Mr. Hopkinson: I shall be covering that point in the course of my remarks this afternoon.
The position is that we have made very great progress in securing and shipping tin; much greater progress, in fact, than we originally expected. Deliveries have already been made, and substantial payments of dollars have been received. When we last debated this Estimate I told the Committee that we expected that 4,000 tons of tin would have been delivered and paid for before the end of the financial year. We have, in fact, been able to improve considerably on that figure. We have already shipped just over 5,000 tons, and we now expect to be able to ship a further 3,000 tons before 1st April. We have already received £2,500,000 against these shipments, and we should receive substantial extra payments before the end of the financial year.
The speed with which we have been able to act in this way has earned us the gratitude of the United States Government who need the tin. Indeed, it has provoked their admiration. It will, of course, mean—and this is very important to us—that our dollar payments will begin and will be received far earlier than would otherwise have been the case.

Mr. Edward Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the tin has been exported from this country or from its original source?

Mr. Hopkinson: Partly from this country and partly from Malaya.
As I said, it is of great importance to us to get our dollars as soon as we possibly can. I mentioned to the Committee on the last occasion that the payments would amount to 52 million dollars for the whole year. On the other hand, by following a policy of steady buying, we have avoided any artificial boom in the price of tin, which is, in fact, generally speaking, rather lower today than it was a month ago.
These achievements, however, have led to certain accounting difficulties which are exceptional and possibly unprecedented. Every effort was made to ensure that the Estimate now before the Committee should be as realistic as possible, but, as I pointed out in my earlier remarks, it was uncertain whether particular purchases and receipts would fall


into the account for this year or next. We could not, for example, control the availability of ships which are nominated by the United States Government. Again, we cannot say when payments must be made for Malayan tin.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: On that point, which is a very important one, does the Minister mean that the metal is only being shipped in United States ships, as suggested by the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. J. Grimston)? Is that part of the agreement? It does not appear in the agreement but, if that is so, it is very serious.

Mr. Hopkinson: It is to be shipped f.o.b., and the Americans have the right to nominate the ships in which it is carried.

Mr. Strauss: Does that in fact mean it is all going in American ships and we cannot ship it in our own ships?

Mr. Hopkinson: They have the right to nominate the ships, and in point of fact they have nominated mainly American ships. We cannot say precisely, and certainly not to a day or two, when payments from America will be received. All these factors affect the outcome of this Vote, and their effect has been accentuated by the purchases and deliveries to which I have referred.
It has become clear from our latest estimates that we shall exceed the estimated gross expenditure on the Estimate now before the Committee. It by no means follows that the net total expenditure in the Estimate will be exceeded. To the extent that the gross expenditure is exceeded this year, we shall spend correspondingly less than the gross amount shown in the Estimate for next year, which is now being printed.
Therefore, although there will be a departure from the proper financial and accounting procedure, it is a matter of timing only. We regret that we cannot avoid this by amending the existing Estimate before the Committee. We are, however, so near the end of the financial year and to the time when the Consolidated Fund Bill will be taken that it is out of the question to submit an amended or Supplementary Estimate. But I felt it was as well to inform the Committee of this development this afternoon so that hon. Members might know the posi-

tion. It will be regularised, of course, by asking for an excess Vote at the appropriate time.
I now turn to the questions which have been put to me this afternoon. I should like to deal first with the comment made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall, and other hon. Members on the benches opposite to the effect that the conclusion of this deal represents a belated conversion of the Conservative Party to the principle of bulk buying.
I will not labour the point that the objection of the Conservative Party was directed not so much against bulk buying as against State buying, but I must make it clear that in this transaction, or series of transactions, neither bulk purchase nor State buying in the ordinary sense are involved. There is no question of bulk purchase in the usual sense in the case of tin. As was pointed out from the benches opposite, Her Majesty's Government are acting as brokers for the United States Government, and if anybody is carrying out bulk purchase it is the United States Government.
I was asked why Her Majesty's Government are buying tin when the Americans could have purchased it them selves. The plain fact is that the Americans made it clear by their attitude that they would not buy on a variable market of which they were still suspicious, however ill-founded those suspicions might be. In order to get tin moving and to get the agreement as a whole, with substantial advantage to ourselves, we offered to take the market risk for them.
In the case of aluminium, it is of course a loan to be replaced by the United States by the middle of 1953. It is true that the Ministry of Materials are continuing the existing system of buying through public channels, but this transaction represents no new extension to the principle. I will concede to the right hon. Gentleman the justice of the claim he made on the 21st February, that the loan of this aluminium to the United States Government was made possible by the foresight of the late Government in securing very substantial quantities of aluminium from Canada.
As to the section of the agreement dealing with making steel available, here again there is no question of State buying. It is being bought not by the British Government but by the iron and steel


industry, acting through the British Iron and Steel Corporation. The right hon. Gentleman inquired whether we should receive the 125,000 tons in the first quarter and 250,000 tons in the second quarter to which we are entitled under the agreement. The answer is that we can expect at least these amounts to be delivered in the United States and elsewhere in the first quarter and second quarter respectively. The agreement, however, refers to deliveries only, and it is a fact that some small parts of the arrivals in this country may slip into the first part of the following quarter concerned.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it would have been better if we could have received higher quantities in the first and second quarters of the year, but he will realise that arrangements for carrying out a deal of this magnitude could not be made quickly if we wanted to make sure of getting the types and quantities of steel we require.

The Chairman: This is all about steel. Is it in order to talk so much about steel?

Mr. Hopkinson: With respect, Sir Charles, all this arises out of questions put to me in a previous debate, all of which were concerned with this agreement and which were then allowed and the need for this Estimate arises from that agreement. As you will remember, it was pointed out the other day that this is not a Supplementary Estimate but a new Estimate, and therefore we were then allowed to range fairly widely.

The Chairman: It struck me that we are dealing with 20,000 tons of tin.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Further to that point, Sir Charles. We are dealing with a Supplementary Estimate connected with 20,000 tons of tin, and the justification for that Estimate is that we are receiving a certain amount of steel in exchange. Therefore, before the Committee can decide whether this Estimate is justified, I submit to you—and I think it was agreed last time we discussed it—that we are entitled to ask questions and to receive answers as to whether we shall receive the right type of steel at the right price at the right time. I submit, with respect, that you should allow answers to be given on those points.

The Chairman: That seems to me very wide of the subject with which we are dealing. However, if it is the wish of the Committee I will allow the hon. Gentleman to continue with that point.

Mr. Hopkinson: I was about to point out that the right hon. Gentleman was quite right when he said he assumed that pressure was put upon the Americans to deliver as much as possible of the one million tons in the first quarter of the year. The figures finally agreed upon were the best we could achieve. The right hon. Gentleman also complained that the Government had agreed to sell tin at a fixed price—and this point has been raised by several other hon. Members—whilst we bought steel at American internal controlled prices which might be varied during the year.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me specifically to say whether we had agreed willingly to this provision or whether it was forced upon us as condition of securing the agreement at all. As I understood it, he wanted this information in order to know in which direction to address his criticism. Well, I am afraid I cannot agree that this is a matter for criticism at all. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks it is, I feel he is entirely misjudging the aims and the atmosphere of the negotiations.
The object of both parties was to achieve an agreement which would be mutually satisfactory in order to help us both out of our difficulties, our shortage of steel on the one hand and the American shortages of tin and aluminium on the other. I have referred to the purchase of steel and tin, but the conditions relating to the two metals are not the same. In the case of steel it was a concession to us that we were allowed to buy at the internal controlled price rather than at the higher export price. In the case of tin, we agreed on a price which, as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans said the other day, was substantially higher than that which the United States had hitherto been willing to pay, which was 1 dollar 12 cents a lb. c.i.f. as compared with 1 dollar 21 cents a lb. c.i.f. (or 1 dollar 18 cents a lb. f.o.b.) as given in the agreement. It was not a question of being willing or unwilling to make the agreement. It was not a question of whether it was right or wrong. The agreement did not give 100 per cent. satisfaction to either side but


it was hammered out in negotiations with good will, each side yielding points.
In regard to the comment which has been made by the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans) and others this afternoon with regard to dollars, I should point out that it is relevant to bear in mind that all of this steel is eligible for reimbursement out of the 300 million dollars provided by the United States Government in support of the defence effort of the United Kingdom. That is a very important point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Colegate) the other day asked me to state what amount or types of steel would make up the one million tons. I think other hon. Members were also interested in this point. The answer is that it will be made up of scrap, pig iron, ingots, semi-finished steel forms such as hot rolled coil, cold rolled sheet, wire rods, bars, tube strip and alloy steel. Some of this iron—scrap, pig iron and ingots—will go some way to help give employment in the constituency of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones), and I felt that he was being a little ungrateful in looking this particular gift horse of steel in the mouth.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: Are certain specific alloy steels prohibited from inclusion in the steel which is received from the United States?

Mr. Hopkinson: I am afraid I cannot give an answer to that question.

Dr. Stross: The Minister has used, I think rather loosely, the expression "looking a gift horse in the mouth." It was a thoughtless remark to make about a commercial transaction when many of us on this side of the Committee, and the other side, too, think that we have not necessarily had a very good bargain in commercial terms. Could the hon. Gentleman tell us what would be the difference in price between scrap iron which is now being transhipped and the price which would have been paid had it lain, for example, in Germany and then had been bought by us?

Mr. Hopkinson: Under the agreement a proportion of this scrap is coming here to this country direct—scrap iron and pig iron. I do not think that was quite understood.

Mr. Jack Jones: Perhaps I might intervene, since the hon. Gentleman has referred to me. I am not at all ungrateful. The point I was making was this. This block tin earns x dollars. Those x dollars would have been far better employed in buying raw materials which could easily have been brought to this country, rather than transhipping this material all the way to America, converting it to steel in the types mentioned, bringing it all the way back to this country where it is made into bicycles and motorcars, and then sending these articles back to America. It would have been far better to spend less dollars and gain more materials. If they are available to America, they could have been made available to us so that we could have put our people to work, and we could have got the conversion value of millions of dollars out of it.

Mr. Hopkinson: I was not intending to suggest that this was a gift horse in the sense that it was not a commercial transaction. Of course, it is. But I have referred previously to the fact that it is eligible for payment out of the aid to our defence structure. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that in the agreement itself there is provision for 750,000 tons of ore to be diverted to this country which would otherwise have gone to the United States.

Mr. Jones: It is not that portion of the deal that I am talking about. I am referring to that portion of the deal which provides that the conversion value accrues to America after the steel has been carted thousands of miles from the other side of the world to America and is then sent back here again to be converted into articles which are exported back to America. It is a crazy arrangement.

Mr. Hopkinson: The original expectation was that 200,000 tons would be scrap and pig iron and 800,000 tons would be steel. There may be less scrap and pig iron and more steel when all the contracts have been placed. It is impossible to say exactly what proportions of the types of steel making up the 800,000 tons will be bought, since contracts for nearly half the steel involved have yet to be placed. Furthermore, the types of steel to be contracted for cannot be determined, first, until the American authorities have decided our allocations for the third and fourth quarters of the year, secondly, until we know


what types of steel will be available in American mills, and thirdly, until we we know how the changing pattern of our own home demand may affect our need of particular types.
The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Fienburgh), suggested the other day that we should be at a disadvantage because the types and forms of steel which we shall obtain would be selected by the Americans and might not fit in with our industrial programme. I can assure the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members that they need have no such fears. A schedule of our requirements is given to the Americans in respect of each quarter. The types of steel to be supplied are then settled in the light of that schedule and of American availability. This is done by friendly discussion and argument, and we are taking nothing that we do not want.
Reference was also made to the report that an increase of £1 to £1 10s. a ton in the selling price of steel in the United Kingdom might result from the import of high priced American steel. I would refer the Committee to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply to a question put to him by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall on 25th February.
Some of my remarks have already covered many of the points which have been raised this afternoon, but I should like to refer to the question of our existing stocks and the effect upon them of withdrawals or sales. I should like to tell the hon. Member for Coventry, North, that, first of all, his figure is not accurate; neither can I deal with the implications of his remarks. We could not give actual figures of deliveries from stock because, as has already been mentioned by one of my hon. Friends, it would be contrary to the public interest to do so. But what we did, in so far as we have drawn on stocks, was done in order to get tin moving quickly and to get our dollars as quickly as we could. We are quite confident that we are not in any way endangering supplies to United Kingdom industry as a result.
As to the question of tin plate, which was raised by several hon. Members, I do not think it would be for me to try to go into the question of allocations of

steel or tin plate, but I would say that, so far as I know, there is no shortage of tin as such in this country, and the cause of the shortage of tin plate is not a shortage of tin. It is a question of a shortage of steel and of tin plate-making machinery. If we can get the steel, which we shall get as a result of this deal, I hope we shall get some further acceleration of production of tin plate in this country.
The hon. Member also referred to the possibility of getting together with the United States with a view to some sort of pooling of stocks. I appreciate very much the interest that he has always taken in the working of the International Materials Conference. Other hon. Members also referred to it. I would only say that I still believe that the right way to deal with these questions is to face them and examine them, and see where we can achieve agreement with the Americans.
My hon. Friend the Member for Heeley (Mr. P. Roberts) referred to the shipment of tin to the Iron Curtain countries. I think I should point out that that shipment was made entirely on private account and was nothing whatever to do with the Government. Not only can I not give him particulars but, if I were in a position to do so, I do not know that I should be in order.
I do regret the tendency which has appeared in some speeches to describe this agreement as subsidising the American businessman. I can assure the Committee that it is nothing of the kind.

Mr. Hobson: That is not the point.

Mr. Hopkinson: This deal has been concluded for very good reasons—to get us additional steel which is needed most urgently, to break this log jam in regard to tin, to improve our commercial relations with the United States and, in short, to make available to both of us things which we mutually require.

Mr. Edward Davies: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that no progress is being made towards the solution of this problem, namely, the accessibility to all of us of these scarce commodities, by some common agreement. He has agreed with that arrangement. Is there not some continuing conference which is going to iron out these terrific fluctuations which injure our economy and the defence programme?

Mr. Hopkinson: Yes. I thought I had made that clear. The question is being examined by the International Materials Conference all the time. We are very ably represented by Lord Knollys, who has a remarkable position among his colleagues, both American and others, on the Conference, and I have no doubt that they have all these problems in mind. Results are being achieved, including the stabilisation of prices as an effect of the allocations over the whole field.
I hope that in view of the value to this country of this agreement, including the agreement on tin, the Committee will accept this Estimate this afternoon.

5.13 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I am sure the Committee—certainly we on this side—are grateful to the Minister for his full explanation and for clearing up some points which were in doubt. I think we know a great deal more about this agreement now.
Before we pass on to the next item of our business there are one or two comments I should like to make and one question which I should like to ask. The first comment is that the Minister really cannot get away with it when he says that bulk purchase does not come into this affair at all. It is a political point, it is true, but it is quite ridiculous to say that.
We are selling to the United States Government 20,000 tons of tin this year at a fixed price, and buying that tin where and as we can, and at such a price as we can. We are acting in this matter not as agents but as principals, and selling to the United States what we are buying in other markets. Of course it is bulk purchase—in the same way as is the purchase of steel from the United States. Although it is not bought by the Government but by the steel industry this is an arrangement made by the Government—

Mr. Jack Jones: By the Prime Minister.

Mr. Strauss: By the Prime Minister. Some hon. Gentlemen who are now Ministers have made speeches on previous occasions objecting to the Government negotiating a commercial agreement. They said that that was the feature they disliked most about bulk purchase, and yet all these features of bulk purchase exist in this agreement. We, on this side

of the House, do not object at all. We think it is necessary, inevitable and desirable. But we must comment, that in this case, as in so many others, the Conservative Government are going back on their word by indulging in this bulk purchase, and they are acting contrary to the policy that they enunciated at Election time.
The other point is that we have been told—and this was news to me, at any rate—that as all the tin which is to be shipped to the United States is sold f.o.b., the United States Government can nominate the boat on which the tin is to be shipped. In fact the United States have nominated, and presumably will continue to nominate, only American ships, so that all the metal going to the United States will sail in United States boats.

Mr. J. Grimston: I made this point. I did not say it was going only in United States ships. I believe one shipment went in British ships.

Mr. Strauss: The Minister, when I interrupted him and made my inquiry, said that the United States Government had nominated, in each case—

Mr. Hopkinson: indicated dissent.

Mr. Strauss: I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that.

Mr. Hopkinson: I said "in most cases."

Mr. Strauss: In most cases. I am glad to hear that. What is the position with regard to the steel we are buying from the United States I am not sure of the terms and conditions upon which that steel is being bought. It is not stated in the agreement. I am not clear whether it is bought f.o.b. American ports, or c.i.f. I want to know whether that steel will come in American ships. Will the United States Government be in a position to nominate the ships that will bring that steel across the Atlantic, or will that be open, as a normal commercial transaction. I appreciate the fact that the hon. Gentleman does not know the answer at the moment, but if it is a fact that this steel can only come in boats nominated by the American Government—

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. A. R. W. Low): indicated dissent.

Mr. Strauss: I am wrong. Then I need not pursue that point.

Mr. Hopkinson: As I thought, the position is that it is bought ex-mill in the United States, and we can ship it as we like.

Mr. Strauss: I am glad we have cleared up that point, because it did cross my mind, and I think the minds of some of my hon. Friends, that this would have been a very undesirable agreement if we were bound in any way as to the shipping which was to transfer this steel across the Atlantic.
I still feel that it is unfortunate that our tin shipped to the United States is to be confined, in respect of a large part of it, to American boats; but in a commercial transaction, where the buyer buys f.o.b., he is normally entitled to say what ship shall carry the goods and, as in this case it is the American Government, it is not surprising that they should nominate their own ships. I do not think that one can object to that in principle, but I think it has some regrettable features. Our attitude towards the Supplementary Estimate and the agreement on which it is based is that we want the steel badly. We must have it. The United States require tin and we also need to sell tin to the United States in substantial quantities; it is one of our best dollar earners. The United States also want aluminium and, owing to the foresight of the last Government—which was graciously acknowledged by the Minister—we are supplying it. We are pretty tight in regard to aluminium but we are not as tight as the United States.
It is obviously to the advantage of this country and the United States that there should be an exchange of these metals, and we agree with the principle that where materials are short they should be allocated between us to our mutual advantage. It is on this principle that this agreement is based, and we do not

disapprove of it. On the contrary, we think it is right, and that it will bring advantages to both countries; but, as I said the other day and as many of my hon. Friends have said today, we do not like some of the features of this agreement at all. We think that some of the features are inequitable.
We are told that this agreement was reached by the normal process of bargaining and we won on some points and the United States on others. That may be so, but it is our job in this House to voice criticisms or doubts about agreements entered into by Her Majesty's Government—when we think those agreements have faulty clauses or are unfair in any way—in order to strengthen the Government on the next occasion, so that in future agreements these inequitable or bad features will be eliminated and the Minister will be able to tell the foreign Government that he cannot get away with such proposals because the House of Commons will not stand for it.
Therefore, I say to the Minister and the Government that while we agree with the agreement and the Supplementary Estimate, we think some of its features are bad. We hope that in any future agreement of this sort—and we hope there will be many, because we think this is a wise way of conducting international economic affairs, especially in periods of shortage—that the points which have been made by my hon. Friend and myself suggesting that parts of the agreement are not wise but contrary to the best interests of the country, will be taken note of and not repeated.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a sum not exceeding £4,092,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for expenditure of the Ministry of Materials for the purchase, storage and handling of tin for sale to the Government of the United States of America.

CLASS I

VOTE 27. SCOTTISH HOME DEPARTMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Secretary of State for Scotland and of the Scottish Home Department, and the salary of a Minister of State; expenses in connection with private legislation; expenses on, and subsidies for, certain transport services; grants in connection with physical training and recreation, coast protection works, services in Development Areas, etc.; grants and expenses in connection with services relating to children and young persons and with probation services; certain grants in aid; and sundry other services.

GALE DAMAGE, NORTH SCOTLAND

5.22 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. James Stuart): This Supplementary Estimate deals with the Government's contribution towards the appeal fund launched by the Lord Provosts in Scotland to help those who suffered serious damage in the great gale which occurred on 15th January and which affected not only the Orkneys but also parts of Caithness and Sutherland. The damage was, I regret to say, serious. I have had the opportunity of visiting some parts of the afflicted area where I met the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond).
The Committee may wish to have some information about the extent of the damage in order to justify this Supplementary Estimate. The approximate estimates of the damage are as follows: in Orkney, damage to agricultural property, £451,230 and damage to other private property £35,761, making a total of £486,991; Caithness, damage to agricultural property, £219,469, and damage to other private property £12,000, making a total of £231,469; and, in Sutherland, the estimate of damage to agricultural property and other private property together amounted to £15,000, a total of £733,460.
In addition there was damage to Government-owned property, not of course coming within the scope of this appeal. The Committee may be interested to know that further damage consisted,

apart from local authority property, of damage to the property of the General Post Office amounting to £28,500, the Scottish Gas Board £250, the North Eastern Regional Hospital Board £920, and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board £7,000.
As the Committee will no doubt know, local appeals were issued in Orkney and Caithness for assistance to those who had suffered and, after consultation with me, the Lord Provosts decided to make a national appeal for funds to assist those local efforts. After we had received some preliminary reports of the extent of the damage, the Government thought it would be a proper and right thing to do to assist, and decided to make an Exchequer contribution to the Lord Provosts' appeal of a sum of £20,000, to which we now ask the Committee to agree in this Supplementary Estimate. The Committee would like to know that all the money collected in response to the national appeal has now been distributed to the local committees in the three counties, who have agreed to conform generally to certain conditions under which they will carry out distribution of these funds.
The total amount subscribed to the funds is as follows: the local Orkney Appeal Fund £17,879, Caithness £217, Sutherland £456 and the national appeal £39,011. On the 29th February the Lord Provosts decided that, including the advances they had made previously to the local funds, to help them tide over the initial difficulties of the period, the national fund should be divided as follows: Orkney £22,161, Caithness £14,750 and Sutherland £2,100, making a total of £39,000, and those payments were made to the three counties last week.
I know that the damage to the agricultural industry in the three counties was very serious, and I realise that some time may elapse before the normal level of agricultural production can be restored. That applies in particular to the poultry industry, where there was serious damage when hen houses were blown away, the poultry, unfortunately, being in the houses at the time of the disaster. But I think it will be possible, with the assistance which is being given, to overcome these difficulties and to carry out repairs which are necessary.
The really important requirements from the local point of view are adequate supplies of materials for the repair of buildings and fodder for livestock. The Government Departments concerned took steps immediately to see that materials and fodder supplies were laid down, and I hope I am right in believing that these arrangements have worked in a satisfactory manner, and the necessary supplies made available.
I can assure the Committee that I have not received complaints on this score, but if there are any it is certainly my desire and the desire of the Department to do everything in our power to see that these difficulties are overcome and the necessary supplies made available because we all realise that that is essential in order to restore agricultural productivity at the earliest possible moment. It would be a very retrograde step if farmers and crofters in the Orkneys or in Caithness and Sutherland were forced to send livestock to the markets at a prematurely early time instead of retaining them and fattening them. Everything possible is being done to avoid that sort of thing.
I have informed the hon. Gentleman the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) recently, in a letter, that if, in the next few months, convincing evidence should be forthcoming to show that financial difficulties are retarding agricultural recovery, I shall be very glad to examine the position once again, but I hope and believe that, in spite of the very serious losses and difficulties which confront the farmers in particular, they are making good headway.
As I have said before, although not in this Committee, I was really impressed with the remarkable determination and spirit shown by the people whom I visited and saw—their determination to restore the damage and to get things going again, and to get on with the job. I certainly wish them well, as I am sure the whole Committee will do, in restoring the position. As I say, I wish to help in any way that I can and the Government can.
I do not think I need tell the Committee all the conditions under which the distribution of the funds will be administered, but I could very briefly give the intention of the local authorities in dealing with these funds. There will be, for example, the provision of extras,

beyond what would be provided by local or national assistance, to enable persons who have suffered loss to resume their normal lives. There will be the supply or renewal of necessities or home comforts, and of such essentials as are required, and are not provided by either local or national sources, to enable persons to resume their normal occupations.
Tools and other things will be provided to assist those distressed persons who would otherwise be unable to resume their normal activities; and there will also be assistance towards relieving substantial losses incurred by persons where the burden would otherwise be a hardship for those concerned. The county committees are being established to administer the funds locally, and those committees will have full authority to deal with all individual cases. I have no reason to suppose that these arrangements will not work in a satisfactory manner.
As I have said, if they do not, we must look at the matter again, and try our best to help, but I have received a number of communications thanking the Government Departments for what has been done in helping in overcoming these difficulties, and I trust that the schemes and the distribution of the funds will work smoothly. I shall do anything further which is needed, if I can, to assist in this matter. I do not wish to take up a great deal of the Committee's time, so I will conclude now by saying that I hope that the Committee will approve this Supplementary Estimate.

5.34 p.m.

Mr. Hector McNeil: I am sure the Committee will want to join with the right hon. Gentleman in expressing sympathy with these people, and more particularly join with him in acknowledging how much courage and resourcefulness the people of the Orkneys and Shetlands, of Caithness and Sutherland, have brought to the rehabilitation of their properties and their lives after this very substantial disaster. But thereabouts, I am afraid, my agreement with the right hon. Gentleman ends.
I do suggest to him that, if such a miserable contribution, after such a substantial disaster, had been offered by a Labour Government, these benches would have been in a frenzy of indignation. I


am sure the Committee is glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared later to look at the circumstances if this miserable help proves inadequate, but I want to suggest to him that at this time of the year, from an agricultural point of view, and at this period, from the administrative point of view, of the people's ordinary arrangements, now is the time to give adequate payment.
I do suggest most strongly that when the damage is estimated at £750,000, more or less—and that is a conservative estimate: some of my friends in the Press whom I know to be acute and responsible people have put the estimate much higher, so that £750,000 is a conservative estimate of the extent of the damage—and when the right hon. Gentleman tries to persuade the Committee that £60,000 will be enough to meet the emergencies of this situation, and that the Government's magnanimous and substantial contribution is £20,000—two seventy-fifths of the extent of the damage—the remedy is insufficient to meet the need. Some of my hon. Friends will have a little to say later on about this curious piece of accountancy—the method by which the Government choose to make this miserable sum available; but I shall leave that for the second.
The right hon. Gentleman—I am sure, quite rightly—paid tribute to the work which the officers of the Department have given to these people. I am sure that he did not mean to mislead the Committee, because he is always direct in his submissions, but, if I understand the position correctly, of course this fodder and these supplies which the Department of Agriculture made available—very speedily, I readily acknowledge—to these people were not free gifts.

Mr. J. Stuart: I did not mean to say so.

Mr. McNeil: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman did not, but, in case any body in the Committee thought the Government were being generous, I wanted to make it plain that they have not been generous. They have been helpful; they have been speedy; but they were not generous. The right hon. Gentleman also assured us that he had had no complaints. I am a little surprised about that. My information leads me to the conclusion that, while no one will get very much, some who need it very badly will get nothing at all.
I am told, for example—perhaps hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will corroborate this—that the crofters are being very harshly treated. I am told that on the Island of Hoy the crofters, who suffered very substantial disasters, and are unable to resume their normal occupations, have had no help at all, and have no expectation of help under the conditions laid down. I should be very grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would assure us he will look again at that point.
As the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee know, the people of those northern areas attracted a good deal of understandable admiration for the way in which they used disposable surpluses at the end of the war and adapted them to their crofting purposes. For instance, they used Army huts. They made improvisations. Not only is this grant of £20,000, measured against the actual damage of £750,000, plainly inadequate, but these improvisations which people were able to make with disposable surplus materials no longer can be made, because that type of material is under tax, and no longer available. We may therefore expect that their expenses will be substantially higher than in the two or three years following the war when they were expanding.
I do not want to run the risk of being thought over-dramatic. I certainly do not want anyone to assume that we as an Opposition are being irresponsible in our criticism. But I literally am pleading with the right hon. Gentleman to say a little more than he has so far been able to say. I will not risk incurring your displeasure, Mr. Bowles, but I must say that a Government which so recently found itself able to make concessions to Surtax payers should not find it too difficult to give more than £20,000 to these hard-working people, upon whose efforts the country literally depends, to meet the results of this substantial disaster.

5.41 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: I join with the right hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) in pressing on the Secretary of State the truth of the saying,
He gives twice who gives quickly.
The Secretary of State has indicated that his mind is open to giving us some further


aid in Orkney. I hope he will be convinced that we merit further aid, and it would be of very great assistance to the islands if it could be given now.
I also join with the right hon. Member for Greenock in reminding the Secretary of State that in Orkney, and in particular in the outlying islands, a great many of the holdings are crofts, either in the strict sense or in the sense that they are very small holdings even though they may be owner-occupied. Those people have no resources to fall back on in a disaster of this kind, and they merit great consideration.
It is certainly not my business either to weary the Committee with what is, to a certain extent, a local matter, or to attempt to harrow the Committee with exaggerated stories of our troubles. Nevertheless, this was a very serious disaster for this small group of islands; it did a great deal of damage to many people who have few, if any, resources. I quite agree that it may be very difficult to judge the standard of aid to give, but it struck me at the time that the aid was small.
It so happens that at that time I had put down a Question about the amount of money spent on the repairing and rebuilding of this Palace of Westminster, and I was told that since the end of the war £3 million has been spent in that way. There are many people in Orkney and Shetland who feel that the production of those islands is in many respects preferable to the production of this Palace. I do not know whether that is a fair comparison, but the aid we are to be given is certainly small when compared with the amounts spent in other directions.
I should like to take this opportunity of expressing the gratitude of these people for the help that has been given; they are very grateful to the Lords Provost and all those who have subscribed to the fund, many of them having little or no connection with the islands. We are very grateful, too, to the Secretary of State, who certainly came up and gave us some help at once. Far be it from me to belittle the help given, but there is a very big discrepancy between the damage, estimated at £500,000 or more, and the £40,000 which is about the total we shall be getting to meet it.
There are certain misconceptions which I wish to clear out of the way. The average Orcadian is not going round begging for assistance and doing nothing himself. That is very far from being the case. I live next door to a small farm run by an old lady and two boys. Their garage disappeared, their henhouses disappeared and the roof is off their byre, but they have never once complained; they have never once asked me to try to get assistance or to help them in any way. On the contrary, I have eaten six or seven of their hens killed in the gale and have had the greatest difficulty in persuading them to take any payment. Let us, therefore, discard the idea that the Orcadians are not helping themselves.
There is also an impression in certain parts of Scotland that Orkney is very wealthy. The Orcadians are a hard-working people; they have broken their farms out of hard land, and they did a lot of it before the days of tractors; a lot of Orkney has been made by a man and a horse working 10, 12 and 14 hours a day. Anyone who goes around, as I have, and talks to them about their damage will not find that they are making big profits or that they have big reserves. On the contrary, their reserves are in their buildings and stock. Certainly they have not big sums of money to fall back on.
This is also a matter of some national importance, because we produce 50 million to 60 million eggs for Britain and a lot of cattle, and it will be a set-back for the country as a whole if that production is permanently affected. Certainly there are bound to be serious effects on the poultry industry, but we should do all we can to minimise them.
It is extremely difficult ever to estimate the amount of damage or the amount that we might expect from the Government towards repairing the damage. There is agricultural damage; damage to fisheries, lobster fishermen, and so on; many houses have been destroyed—ten in Stromness alone—and many others have their roofs off. I would say that the estimated figure is probably the minimum. Many people have not made claims and many others will not be able to estimate their damage for many years, because there will be secondary effects owing to lack of fodder, for instance, and the difficulty in repairing buildings during the bad weather since


the gale; those effects will be felt for a very long time. The £40,000, which I think is the total of the Government grant—

Mr. J. Stuart: The total is approximately £57,000 local and national: £39,000 national, plus about £18,000 of other amounts.

Mr. Grimond: I had left out the amount we subscribed ourselves: call it £60,000, then. From going round and making what investigations I can, I am honestly satisfied that that will not go more than half-way towards meeting the real cases of hardship far less to putting the county back to full production. The Government may say it is not their business to meet the real cases of hardship, although I think they would at least like to try to do so. I know of smallholders who have suffered damage estimated at about £500 who will not get half that. I do not know how many there are, but there are certainly some. This aid will not enable the Orkney to get back into anything like full production for some time.
I should like to cite two cases, because I think they provide good illustrations. One concerns a farm which the Secretary of State himself saw. It is a big poultry farm, the damage to which is estimated to be £1,000. Now that man does not want a grant, but he does want a loan. He must have a loan if he is to get back into production, but at present he is finding it very difficult to get that loan, and he would in any case have to pay a very high rate of interest. Another man had his seed oats blown away, and has lost some of his fodder. He has gathered up a certain amount, but the Secretary of State and the Joint Under-Secretary of State will appreciate that it is all wet, and will not be of very much value.
The Secretary of State said he would be sorry to hear of beasts being sold off because of lack of fodder, but last Monday morning when I was at his farm that man was at the market selling off his beasts because he cannot feed them. That is one case. I do not know how many other similar cases there are. This will be a continuing problem for some months, as the Secretary of State will understand, with men finding that they can no longer keep their beasts, or

that the damage to the roof has gone too far, and so on.
I suggest to the Secretary of State that if he could increase the grant by a small amount now he would do a great deal to meet the cases of real hardship, and, what I think is as important: could he not consider making available some comparatively easy loans? I think that that would be a good thing not only from a local but from a national point of view: it would enable the farmer who is not reduced to real hardship to get back to full production.
A man wants to help himself. He wants to put back the roof on his byre and on his house, and he will do all he can to help himself, but he must have some assistance by way of working capital. Cannot the Secretary of State consider making loans? Lastly, there is the difficulty of tradesmen. There are very few masons available in some of the outer islands and a tremendous amount of work has to be done at this time of the year when the weather permits. We may need assistance from the south to get extra tradesmen and masons to get the roofs back on the buildings.
We are extremely grateful for all the help which has been given to us, but we do not think that it is quite enough.

Major D. McCallum: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, may I ask him something that is important? My information is that the local authority of Orkney resents all this fuss being made about their wanting funds to help them. Would he say if he has been approached by the local authority requesting him to ask the Government for an increased grant?

Mr. Grimond: I do not think that the local authority as a body has expressed an opinion. There may be individual members of the authority who have expressed an opinion but, so far as I know, there is no official opinion of the local authority. I can tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman that I have been approached by several individual people who have laid their cases before me, and I have been to see their holdings. I agree that we do not want to exaggerate this matter and to appear in the guise of general beggars. All we want is assistance over the really hard cases and help to help ourselves. I would agree with him that my estimate of


£40,000 or £50,000 as the grant needed for hardship cases is my own estimate. It is the best that I can give. It may not be a correct estimate. But I would say that from any point of view, local, national or any other, some form of assistance in the way of loans would be of the greatest assistance.
We are extremely grateful for the help which has been given and we do not want to come begging to the Government for unnecessary assistance, but we should like to have some further help in the islands so that we can help ourselves to the best of our ability.

5.45 p.m.

Sir David Robertson: The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) referred to the production of the Orkneys, and I would say that the Orkneys' greatest production has been the very fine men and women which it has turned out over a long period of time. They are hardworking people, and, unhappily, many have had to leave home and seek their livelihood in all parts of the world. Their reputation stands high, and the last thing that anyone would think about them would be that they would beg or seek charity. They are, I am sure, most grateful to the warm-hearted people in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Perth and Dundee who rallied to the assistance of the Secretary of State in raising funds for them.
I arrived in my constituency on the morning of the hurricane, and I have never seen worst devastation. I travelled overnight from Glasgow by train and the station authorities at Inverness were surprised the train had got through at all. The hurricane was so bad that they thought that the train might have been blown off the line. I made the journey from Inverness to Wick by road, and before we got to Dingwall we had three or four hold-ups by trees which had been blown across the road. In every wooded area in the region of the hurricane the roads were similarly blocked.
Happily, the hurricane only hit a small part of Great Britain, and it might have hit a much greater part. In my submission, the people who were not affected—and we represent many of them—would have been very pleased indeed to meet all the cost of this disaster, which hit a few and missed 50 million.
I can assure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) that there was some simmering of indignation on these benches. I worked in conjunction with the right hon. Gentleman in trying to get the local authorities to organise assistance, and in Sutherland they did that. The county council and the town council of Dornoch met together and appointed the Lord Lieutenant as a member of a committee to organise assistance. In Caithness they set up a similar organisation.
I think that there was a feeling among some who were responsible for the organisation in Caithness that there were many who did not need the money at all. I, who have the honour of representing the people, knew that there were many crofters and small farmers who had suffered greatly.
I spent some days travelling about the countryside to find out the extent of the damage. Reports were slow in coming in because of the number of telegraph poles and telephone lines which were down. Those that were standing carried bushels of straw entangled in the wires which had been blown on to them by the gale. In spite of all this, I never saw a more heartening sight than the way those people were trying to help themselves. Men, women and children were working all hours, and even in the darkness, by the aid of oil lamps. They were salvaging their crops and stocks and remaking their haystacks.
I wonder if the Committee realise that almost every haystack in the county was blown down. At Bettyhill, the hall where I and my political opponents have held so many Election meetings was completely flattened. It was a great and serious matter for these people, and when I got back here on 29th January, Mr. Speaker was so impressed by the urgency of the matter that he permitted me to ask a Private Notice Question.
I asked for £500,000. I did not know then what the damage was, and I may have asked for too much, but it was better to be on the right side rather than on the side of the Treasury, because I feel the hand of the Treasury in this. Everyone who knows the Secretary of State for Scotland is certain that it is not his doing. He is the instrument of inflicting Treasury policy on the country, and I believe that the fact that these great


cities, which are so famous for their generosity, produced so little as £19,000 was because they realised that this burden should have been borne by all the people.
It would have been a very small contribution, even in these times when we are facing so many difficulties and trying to restore the value of the £. I believe that every man, woman and child in Great Britain would have been only too pleased to feel that they could assist in alleviating the sufferings of these very gallant people, who live in a severe climate and who have so many handicaps, by meeting all their losses. I strongly urge my right hon. Friend to make an assault on the Treasury. He came here today asking for the Committee's approval for £20,000. I believe that the Committee would give him approval for the whole amount of the damage.
My right hon. Friend made no reference to local authority damage. I wonder how he thinks the little bankrupt burgh of Wick will meet its damage. Will it mean another 2s. in the £ on the rates? The burgh is already struggling to put its finances in order. I beg my right hon. Friend to take courage and make a determined assault on the Treasury. If he does I am sure that he will have the whole Committee behind him.

6.1 p.m.

Miss Margaret Herbison: Many of us agree with hon. Members whose constituents have been affected that the amount being provided is very niggardly. If I understood the figures correctly, the Secretary of State estimates the loss in these three areas at about £750,000, and the sum collected up to date from all sources at around £60,000. A rapid calculation indicates that there has been collected from the various sources 7 per cent. of all the damage which has already been estimated.
I understand that the crofters have made an appeal to the Secretary of State for help, and my information is that they were informed that there was no fund from which they could be assisted. I hope we may be told whether that is the case. If it is the case, it is a very serious matter for those crofters.

Mr. J. Stuart: They are, of course, in the same position as others who have

suffered damage, in that they can make application to the local committee administering the fund.

Miss Herbison: That puts it in a better light, but if in all the funds there is only enough to cover 7 per cent. of the estimated damage, the crofters and the others will be very hard hit indeed.
Everyone has agreed that the £20,000 is niggardly, but what are we really geting from the Home Department? We are not getting £20,000 from the Department or from the Treasury; we are getting the miserly sum of £10. That is, all the extra money which is being given. If they look at the Estimates hon. Members will find that although £20,000 has been given to the Lord Provost's Fund, the Supplementary Estimate is for only £10.
Hon. Members may wish to know where we get the other £19,990. They will find that this comes from an expected saving under Subhead H—"Grants for Physical Training, etc." I was horrified when I saw this, and I am not exaggerating in any way when I say "horrified." For some time I was Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland and I know that, for the purposes of physical training and recreation, the provision of playing fields and village halls—

Captain J. A. L. Duncan: On a point of order. May we know what we can discuss on this Estimate? The hon. Lady is discussing a saving on Vote 27. Is it in order to discuss a saving? Surely it is in order only to discuss the actual money involved.

Mr. A. Woodburn: Further to that point of order. A Supplementary Estimate is the presentation of a two-sided account; on one side there is expenditure and the other side shows where the money has been drawn from. Surely the House has control over all the moneys dealt with by the House and therefore both matters may be discussed.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Frank Bowles): The hon. Lady is in order. However, we cannot discuss savings. We are actually discussing Class I, Vote III, which deals with the grant to the three counties. The hon. Lady is in order just to refer in passing to the fact that the Vote is only £10, but that is Vote I


and not Vote III. She must confine herself to Vote III.

Miss Herbison: We are asked to accept the Supplementary Estimate, and I wish to point out that we might have grave objection to accepting it because of the way in which it has been made up.

The Temporary Chairman: To that extent the hon. Lady is in order.

Miss Herbison: The reason I was so horrified to find that there had been a raid on that fund in order to provide this sum and make the Estimate only £10 was that I knew from my work at the Scottish Office the difficulties we have had in Scotland in meeting the needs of the people. Time and time again we had letters and deputations pleading for more playing fields and village halls.

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Lady is now out of order. She can in passing just refer to the saving on physical training, but she cannot complain about that saving, and to that extent she is out of order.

Mr. McNeil: On a point of order. Is not my hon. Friend fully entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain the saving and to speculate as to where the saving has come from?

The Temporary Chairman: No, never on a Supplementary Estimate. I do not know that I quite understand why the Rule is that way, but at all events that is the Rule.

Miss Herbison: I am very sorry that I cannot ask how the saving was made, particularly as I know that the Department has had to turn down many people who needed assistance for very important purposes.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) pleaded for a further grant to be made at once by the Home Department. If the Secretary of State decides to make another grant, all I ask is that he should not raid the children's meal service or some other such service. I agree with the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland that it is at this time that consideration should be given to a further grant and that we should not wait until it is too late and stock which ought to be kept for future purposes has been sold.

6.9 p.m.

Captain J. A. L. Duncan: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the speed and efficiency with which he responded to the occasion. It is very unusual for a Government Department to act as quickly as did the Department and also my right hon. Friend.
I was once the victim of a political hurricane in Caithness and Sutherland, a very long time ago, before my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) came to that constituency and avenged me.
I have been watching this situation with a certain amount of anxiety because I naturally felt that £20,000 was a very small sum when compared with the estimates of damage. My knowledge of the local people made me realise that they were not the sort who would ask for charity. If they could do for themselves without asking for charity they would do so. After the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), I think it is possible that there may be hardship which the Government and the local authorities are not finding because people are not telling.
My second point, therefore, is this. Is the right hon. Gentleman quite satisfied that he has officials up there who are finding out the exact state of affairs? Is he quite satisfied that he has enough liaison either with the local people or with the officials up there to enable him to secure a report on the exact state of affairs and not rely on the representations of others? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) has one story and Members from other areas concerned have presented a different set of facts. I should like to be assured that my right hon. Friend has the whole story, and if it is found on investigation that there is real need still existing, I hope he will remember his promise to give further assistance.
My right hon. Friend, in his speech, said that in a letter to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland he had offered to consider giving further help. Nobody else knows what is in that letter. Would it be possible for him to publish the contents in some form so that everybody, particularly those in the area requiring further help, would know that there was


this promise of further consideration should the facts warrant it? Under those circumstances we could be assured that this hurricane damage, which has done so much harm to agriculture, could be put right by the valiant efforts of the people themselves assisted not only by the local people but by the Government.
There are precedents for hurricane relief. In the Colonial Office Estimates almost every year we find hurricane damage relief in Fiji, Jamaica, the West Indies and other parts of the world. In those Estimates in the last 20 years—

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. and gallant Member must be very quick on that point, too.

Captain Duncan: I agree, Mr. Bowles. There are precedents for offering hurricane relief on our own Estimates, and that is a precedent which my right hon. Friend could well follow.

6.14 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: The lines of dramatic irony in "Macbeth":
The raven himself is hoarse
That croaks the fatal entrance of Duncan
Under my battlements.
could be aptly applied to the entry of the hon. and gallant Member for Angus, South (Captain Duncan) into our debate. His entry under the Highland battlements is far from auspicious or helpful. He is about as relevant to Highland people and places as this £20,000 is to the over £733,000 damage and the need of the hurricane victims in these Highland and Island counties.
I want to pay tribute to the tone of the speech of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), who so well represented the true attitude of the constituencies concerned in this matter. I have met many Highland people recently, including the public representatives of those areas concerned and of Caithness and Sutherland, and I can say quite honestly that I have not had a single complaint made to me or any request for money help. I have not heard any request to anyone to intervene directly to give financial help for the distress which these people have suffered. There has been distress and there still is, and all the damage has not yet been revealed.
But one of the most striking things about this disaster—and it was a aster for many—is the fact that the local people themselves were the very last to make any request to the country and to the Government for some assistance to meet their difficulties. On the other hand, I do not think that the Government were in any way gallant or represented the real feelings of the House of Commons and the country in treating the silent suffering, or shall I say dignified forbearance, of these areas with such financial contempt. I do not wish to get out of order on the question of the details of the way in which the money was pinched—that, I think, is the right word; that is the ethical level of the wangle of figures—

Mr. John Rankin: Mulcted.

Mr. MacMillan: —that makes up this utterly inadequate figure of £20,000.
In passing, it just means that if, say, Shetland or Caithness want a playing field or something provided under the welfare scheme, for which this money was originally voted, they will be told there are no further grants from the £19,990, and so another injustice will be added to the effects of the hurricane. If they want any welfare or physical training or village hall grants from this fund, which makes up the £20,000, then they will be told, "You cannot have it; and you can add that refusal to the hurricane damage." This is a most pathetic device for finding £20,000 even at this time and even by this Government.
I will not assist the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) in minimising the importance of the present Secretary of State as he shrinks under Treasury pressure. We in the Highlands have had hard experience of the harshness of the Treasury under many Governments, but this was the worst possible way of raising this money because it was robbing quite a number of poor local Peters to pay a number of poor local Pauls; and possibly the same Peters and Pauls.

Mr. J. Stuart: Before the hon. Member proceeds with his allegation that we have been robbing somebody to provide this fund, it might be as well if both he and the Committee understood that that is not what is happening at all. These


moneys were unexpended balances under another Vote and they have been transferred for this purpose. To go into details has already been ruled out of order, but I might explain that this is what might be called a method of bookkeeping, and does not mean that the taxpayer does not provide the £20,000.

Mr. MacMillan: It is more like a method of bookmaking than of bookkeeping. This was money which was voted by the previous Government for a specific purpose and because it was left unexpended when the Labour Government went from office, this Government took it, with half a year still in which to spend it.

Mr. Stuart: That is not true.

Mr. MacMillan: That is a fact.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hopkin Morris): The hon. Member may be interesting, but he is not strictly in order.

Mr. MacMillan: I was trying to keep in order; and I take it that the reply of the right hon. Gentleman is also out of order.
I hope he will not squander this last £10 in some frivolous extravaganza of profligacy to celebrate the passing of this proposal as the end of any further need to help the Highlands and Islands. If the people in the Islands and Caithness have met this disaster with a dignified forbearance and almost with silence—certainly they were silent so far as the county council are concerned—we should have been led to go to the other extreme of offering them dignified assistance on a scale of decency, rather than insult them with this niggardly offering.
Please let us not take silence as the measure of the need. I am sure that this Committee would have passed without question an adequate, even generous, grant of assistance. I invite any Member of any side of the Committee to say whether that is not so. No question of political controversy arises and no question of breaking the Treasury or any threat to national solvency. The right hon. Gentleman has still time to come forward and try to be more generous in this matter. I am not going to accuse him personally of lack of generosity, but I suggest that the question ought to be

approached again with the support of at least equally influential Cabinet colleagues in order to bring the scale of assistance to something commensurate with the need.
Let us not take the forbearance in misfortune of these areas as any measure of their need. I hope that the Committee will urge upon the right hon. Gentleman the need for reconsideration, because this kind of economy is unworthy of the House of Commons and of the right hon. Gentleman himself.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. H. R. Spence: The Committee are being a little less than fair to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland in censuring his action in connection with the disaster in Orkney and Shetland. He acted with great promptness in going up there and he made an immediate grant of £20,000. When he was there he made it clear that other assistance would be given. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I would refer to the speeches made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson).
They are a proud people in Orkney and Shetland and in the North, and it may well be that the full facts have not come before the Minister. This debate will serve a useful purpose in making it clear that the Secretary of State for Scotland, as he has said tonight, will give full consideration to any claims that may be made. A suggestion has been made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland which it is thought would be far more acceptable to many of the independent Northerners. I hope that it will go on record that our Secretary of State has done all that lies in his power and has shown great sympathy over this disaster, which we all regret so much.

6.24 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: I would not like it to be thought by the country that we in this Committee are being irresponsible in raising this matter. If I thought for a minute that the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Government had done everything in their power, I would be silent. It is because we feel that enough has not been done that we are speaking tonight.
Look at the Estimate. The extent of the sacrifice which the country is being called upon to make to help the people who suffered is £10. That is the Supplementary Estimate. We had a disaster. One hon. Gentleman has suggested that we should not speak about this matter because the people of Orkney and Shetland have not raised their voices. Because people are not vocal about their sufferings is no reason why this Committee should avoid its responsibility of helping where need is required.
At this time of the year, every Member of this House is deluged with memoranda from pressure groups asking for financial assistance through the Budget, and very often getting it. The people of the Orkneys are not the least independent of the independent folk of these islands, and the fact that they have not pleaded with us does not mean that we should not recognise that something has to be done.
That need has been proved by the Secretary of State for Scotland himself. He said that later he might examine the position once again. Those were his words. Surely on the facts that he has already told us—and they were very grudgingly and ungraciously accepted by the hon. and gallant Member for Angus, South (Captain Duncan)—the damage amounted to at least £750,000. He neglected local authority damage, building damage at the post office, and everything else like that. [Interruption.] I am not going to presume to teach arithmetical calculation to the hon. and gallant Member for Angus, South.

Captain Duncan: Why not?

Mr. Ross: Because I select my pupils. One thing on which there is no doubt at all is that the actual amount which is being raised in various ways, including the £20,000 by the Government, to offset the damage will total just over £60,000. [Interruption.] If the hon. and gallant Member for Angus, South, who has already addressed us and entertained us, has anything to say, I will be very glad to give way to allow him to speak. He failed to enlighten us very much about what he wanted when he spoke, and I do not think he can do it any better by sitting there and just mumbling. On the figures of what is being raised to offset this immediate hardship, the Secretary of

State for Scotland should have already re-examined the position.
We have another responsibility in this Committee. We have to look after the traditions of Britain, which has a very proud tradition of not waiting to reexamine a position when facts are there in front of us. There was a hurricane in Jamaica. The amount given was well over £1 million, if I remember aright. There was flooding in Canada not so long ago, and immediate help came from this country.
People might begin to wonder whether it is distance from these islands that is the measure of the help that should be given, but even that does not bear examination when we recollect that it is not so many years ago—a matter of two or three—that the same Department had to deal with flooding in South-East Scotland. I wish that the Secretary of State would refresh his mind on the amount of financial assistance that was given at that time. He will find that it was a good deal more than the miserable £20,000. I sincerely hope—

Mr. J. Stuart: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Border floods, the help was £20,000.

Mr. McNeil: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman remembers that although £20,000 was given in cash, the Minister at that time did much else, both in agriculture and engineering, to deal with drainage, reduction of flooding, and re-channelling. The facts are in the possession of the Department.

Mr. Ross: The facts which I have put forward about the help given on that occasion show that it was comparable to the extent of the disaster, and prove that even then the Labour Government of that time did far more than is being done by the present Minister and by the Government. In the light of the facts about the other part of the Estimate, how the assistance is being provided and where the money is coming from, it is really disgraceful.

Mr. Stuart: Is the hon. Member suggesting that the money does not come out of the pockets of the taxpayers?

Mr. Ross: No, I am suggesting that it is coming out of the pockets of the taxpayers.
However, the extent of the additional sacrifice which people are being asked to


bear is exactly £10. which is the amount of this Estimate. It cannot be talked away. It says there that the total of the additional sum required is £10 which is not budgeted for. So I do not agree with those people who talk about being less than fair to the Secretary of State for Scotland. I do not blame the right hon. Gentleman; I blame the Government. I do hope, however, that he will attack severely any Treasury obstacle that remains when, having re-examined the position, he appreciates that more help has to be given.
It was my good fortune, during the war, for some considerable time to be in the part of the world which has been stricken, so I know the kind of people they are. They are the kind of people who help themselves with whatever lies at hand or they can get. They do not wait for help. They have already started on this task, but it is not just their task. What these people produce is part of the wealth of the entire country and it is vital to us at the present time. We cannot afford to let them work with inadequate equipment.
The Secretary of State said he has sent materials and fodder, but those things are no good unless the people have the financial backing to acquire them. From what we have already been told, it is apparent that financial help is not there at the present time. So from every point of view the Secretary of State for Scotland must re-examine this position and give additional help to that part of the country.

6.32 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I intervene merely because there is a question of principle involved which should be discussed. Of course I support the Estimate, but it comes at the wrong time, in the wrong way and for the wrong amount. It involves considerations which are ethical and strategic as well as economic. I think the Committee will agree with me when I say that it is a disgraceful thing that a visitation of Providence which has done so much damage to a part of Britain should be left to be dealt with by private philanthropy. It is quite wrong. It should have been dealt with by the House of Commons long ago on a national basis and in a more generous and fitting way.
There are two or three questions I want to put to the Secretary of State which I hope will be answered by whoever replies to this debate. Why was this matter not dealt with at the time of or immediately after the devastation? Why now are we being asked to vote this comparatively trivial amount, an amount which is quite disproportionate to the damage done?

The Deputy-Chairman: If, as I gather, the hon. and learned Gentleman is suggesting that this sum should be increased, it is not in order to do so.

Mr. Hughes: I am arguing, as previous speakers in this debate have argued, that the sum which it is proposed to vote is quite disproportionate to the damage done. The figures were given by the Secretary of State without any objection on the part of the Chair. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that the damage amounted to £783,000, while £57,000 was subscribed by private charity—a sum which is merely one-fourteenth of the damage done—and now this Committee is being asked to vote a sum to make up the estimate. My argument is that the sum we are being asked to vote is quite disproportionate to the damage, that it is inadequate and that the Secretary of State should explain to the Committee—

The Deputy-Chairman: If the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman is that this sum of £20,000 should be increased, it is out of order.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: On a point of order, Mr. Hopkin Morris. Are you ruling that the hon. and learned Member will be out of order if he argues that the sum allocated is too small?

The Deputy-Chairman: If the hon. and learned Gentleman is arguing that the sum allocated should be increased, that would be out of order.

Mr. Hughes: With respect, Mr. Hopkin Morris, it seems to me to be playing with words. My argument is that what we are asked to vote is much too small for the purpose for which it is intended. I am addressing the following questions to the Secretary of State: why was this not done earlier? Why was it not done at the time of the damage? Why is the sum—I will not say "not larger" but so small? And why has not the Secretary of State asked Parliament at a much earlier time for the money for this purpose?
I venture to suggest to the Committee that in no other country would such a state of affairs, where part of Britain has been damaged in this way and no attempt made until today to deal with it in an official way, be tolerated. That, as a matter of principle, is entirely wrong and the Committee should not tolerate it.

6.38 p.m.

Mr. J. Stuart: Before I deal with other points, I want to say to the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) that the intention of the Government to make this grant was announced 10 days after the storm occurred. It so happens that this Estimate might have come before the Committee some days ago, but it did not do so owing to a discussion on another Supplementary Estimate, although I was waiting anxiously and patiently. It is not due to any dilatoriness on the part of the Government, because we announced our intention; and I have now come to the Committee in the hope that it will be approved.

Mr. Manuel: Do I take it that the local committees are already set up for the disbursement of this money? Or are they still to be set up? It is no use agreeing the principle if the vehicle of expression has been given no attention.

Mr. Stuart: The money has already been sent and it was distributed last week to the three local committees in the different counties.
At the outset I want to deal with another point which has been mentioned by several hon. Members this evening. I do not wish to get out of order, Mr. Hopkin Morris, but with regard to the method of accounting or estimating I wish to make it clear that the Government contribution to the fund is £20,000. Therefore, £20,000 of the taxpayers' money goes to the relief of distress in Orkney, Caithness and Sutherland.
That is what matters and I hope that is not out of order. It is not being stolen from other funds. The truth is that the other Estimate, if I may refer to it, was under-spent, not through any fault of my own. Therefore, the money would only have gone back to the Treasury. This is, I say, a form of accounting—

Mr. Ross: rose—

Mr. Stuart: —but the point is that it had been voted to the Scottish Home Department and if we had handed it back to the Treasury we should have had to get it back from the Treasury again. It is fairly simple.

Mr. McNeil: Would the right hon. Gentleman explain to the Committee if the intention of the Government was that £20,000 should be made available to the Orkney fund provided that he saved £19,990 from some other fund, or did the Government mean to give an additional £20,000?

Miss Herbison: There is another point, before the right hon. Gentleman answers that. He has tried to say that this money was not spent. Can he tell the Committee the number of miners in Fifeshire who are through from Lanarkshire and have no place in which to meet, and of the many other people who could well have used the whole of the £50,000 under that Vote?

Mr. Stuart: Lots of other people could have used it—the hon. Lady knows that. It was voted by Parliament for a specific purpose, and it was underspent. The point is that the fund is getting the £20,000 and that is what we are discussing.
The right hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) referred to this assistance as being a miserable contribution—

Mr. McNeil: Hear, hear.

Mr. Stuart: —but as he knows, it is public money. It has not yet been distributed. I informed the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland in a letter that we could look at the matter later when the distribution and administration of the fund was more further advanced. If my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Angus, South (Captain Duncan) wishes to have a copy of the letter, I do not think the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland would object.

Mr. McNeil: Let the Committee have it.

Mr. Stuart: I have no objection to that. There is nothing secret about it. It was a letter to the hon. Member, who has written and spoken to me on the subject. I endeavoured to explain earlier what I said. I said something to the effect that


if in the next few months there is convincing evidence that financial difficulties are retarding agricultural recovery, I shall be prepared to examine the position again.

Mr. Woodburn: A great deal has been said tonight about letters and some Members, at least, have said that nobody has asked for money. Some people think that the crofters on the Island of Hoy have suffered a great deal of damage, that many of them will have to leave the island, and that this will lead to a further depopulation of the island. Has the right hon. Gentleman been appealed to on behalf of the crofters, and has he replied in another letter, which has not been quoted, saying that there is no fund from which any money can be given to help them to rebuild their houses and to re-roof their premises?

Mr. Stuart: No such reply has been sent to the crofters. The Island of Hoy was pointed out to me as we passed by, and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is well in the minds of those who are responsible for the administration of the fund and that the crofters on Hoy or elsewhere are just as much entitled as anybody to apply to the fund for assistance for those who are in need.
The main points which have been raised are to the effect that more should be given. I have dealt with that, because, as I have said, the existing funds have not yet been distributed. Therefore, it would not be right or proper for me or for anyone else to suggest that further public money should be made available at this stage.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland asked one or two questions, to which I should like to refer. I agree with most of his remarks but I am sure that the local committees, who know the local problem and difficulties, are the right people to handle these funds and that they will do so sympathetically. I am sure that the hon. Member would agree. The funds at present at their disposal have not yet been distributed in full, and I think we should await any further consideration until we see how it goes.
The hon. Member referred to credit facilities. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred

recently to the need for all engaged in agriculture to have adequate credit facilities. The banks are aware of that and I am sure that, locally, they will do what they can to assist. I agree that those who are repairing damage and the farming community generally who have suffered in Orkney and elsewhere, may require additional assistance in the way of borrowings during the current year and, perhaps, next year.

Mr. Grimond: I have in mind rather interest-free loans or a reduced rate of interest. Will the Secretary of State be giving instructions to banks? I have provided him with details of a case in which it appears that they have not felt able to give the facilities which, he admits, are necessary.

Mr. Stuart: I will approach, if not attack, the Treasury on that subject and I will endeavour to see that that matter is handled.
The hon. Member referred in particular to building and roofing materials, and on that I am in full agreement with him. We have been hoping that local merchants have been able to maintain supplies and that adequate supplies have been sent to them. If there are any cases where merchants locally are short of roofing, building materials, and so forth, I will certainly do anything further that I can to assist if the hon. Member will communicate with me.
I hope the Committee will agree that we have covered most of the ground. I only say, once again, that I view with the greatest sympathy all those who have suffered damage. I will do anything further than I can to help, and I am sure that I express the views of the whole Committee when I say that those who have suffered damage through the serious gale have the Committee's good wishes and sympathy. I hope that the Committee will be prepared to agree to the Estimate.

Mr. McNeil: I greatly regret that the right hon. Gentleman has not found in his vocabulary one sentence to indicate that he will consider at an early date the inadequacies which may arise from this contribution.

Mr. Stuart: I have repeated what I wrote to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, and I have stated more than once that the existing funds have not yet been distributed in full. A cer-


tain amount has been distributed to needy cases. Surely, it is only sound business, particularly in dealing with public funds, to see if, and what, further help is required before we make up our minds.

Mr. McNeil: The right hon. Gentleman said in his speech and in the letter that he would be prepared to look at the matter again in some months. We are now in March. If anything is to be done in the current season, it will have to be done quickly. I cannot conceal the feelings of my hon. and right hon. Friends that he has been unable to go further.
Let me put one specific point to the right hon. Gentleman. I readily accept his assurance to my right hon. Friend that he has not told crofters in the Island of Hoy that no funds are available to them. So that no further misunderstanding may arise, will he assure the Committee that the crofters in Hoy who have suffered damage to their property, and particularly to their homes, will have funds made available from these sources for such purposes as the re-roofing of their homes and the repair of damage that arose from the hurricane?

Mr. Stuart: I thought I had answered the point. Certainly, they are in the same position as others. They should make application to the local Orkney committee administering the relief fund, and I am sure that the applications will be sympathetically considered. My Department and I are not dealing with the distribution of the funds, which, as I have said, have been distributed on a fair basis between the three counties. The local county committees will deal with the applications and hardship cases and will distribute the funds.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Secretary of State for Scotland and of the Scottish Home Department, and the salary of a Minister of State; expenses in connection with private legislation; expenses on, and subsidies for, certain transport services; grants in connection with physical training and recreation, coast protection works, services in Development Areas, &amp;c.; grants and expenses in connection with services relating to children and young persons and with probation services; certain grants in aid; and sundry other services.

CLASS VI

VOTE 1. BOARD OF TRADE

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for the salaries and expenses of the office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade and subordinate departments, including assistance and subsidies to certain industries; certain grants in aid; provision of emergency accommodation for visitors to the Festival of Britain; and other services.

VOTE 3. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE IN DEVELOPMENT AREAS

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £253,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for financial assistance to industrial undertakings in Development Areas, including remanet expenditure in respect of similar assistance in former Special Areas.

DEVELOPMENT AREAS (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE)

6.52 p.m.

Mr. John Edwards: I imagine that it will fall to a Treasury Minister to handle this matter, and perhaps one of the Financial Secretary's hon. Friends will make a note of the few questions which I shall put to him before we pass from this Supplementary Estimate. We have heard a good deal in the last week or so about deflation and inflation, but we have spent very little time in considering the basic structure of the troubles which beset our industry, of which the pre-eminent prewar manifestation was to be found in the Development Areas.
It is quite true that the situation has changed and that now very many parts of the Development Areas can be said to be back to normal, but since it is unlikely that one could deal with a deep-seated and long-standing economic trouble even in the passage of the time since the end of the war, it still remains true that the Development Areas, or parts of them at any rate, constitute a potential weakness and, in time of adversity, are likely to be the first affected.
I think the Committee will agree that what has been done in this field is good.


Under the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, upwards of £40 million has been spent and my guess is that something over 100,000 jobs have been found. The provision in the Act by which loans can be made is, I am sure, of great help in that connection. In order to form a proper judgment of the Supplementary Estimate, it is desirable that we should know what are the total commitments at present under Section 4 of the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945—by which I mean the agreements which have been entered into and the approvals which have been given.
Secondly, I think we need to know the amount of the actual advance up to date under Section 4 of the Act. Thirdly, I think it is desirable that we should know what amounts have been written off up to date. In respect of the Supplementary Estimate it is, again, difficult to form a proper judgment about what has been done under Section 4 of the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, or what is proposed to be done, unless we can also be told what has been done under Section 3 of the Distribution of Industry Act, 1950. I appreciate that we cannot debate that today and I am merely asking for the information in order that we may form a proper judgment of the situation as a whole.
In respect of the Supplementary Estimate itself, I think the Committee would like to know to whom this total sum of £1 million will go, how many firms are concerned—I am not asking for their names—where they are located and what kind of industries have been helped. I think the Committee ought to be given this information in order that we might see how Section 4 is being operated.
There is another matter on which I am sure the Financial Secretary will be able to enlighten us. I should like to know what is the current rate of interest on these loans and the extent to which there have been changes in the interest rates in recent months. In the nature of things, it often means that firms which are attracted to the Development Areas are marginal firms, and changes of interest rates obviously are of great importance when we are trying to attract people into the Development Areas. I should like to know from the Financial Secretary, therefore, what interest rates are being charged and what changes have taken place in these interest rates since the new mone-

tary policy was introduced by the Government.
Will the Financial Secretary also tell us whether the revised Estimate of £1 million, with the additional sum of £250,000—and I am talking about the item under "Loans"—represents a ceiling which has been fixed or whether it represents the total need which has been shown? Putting it differently, could we be told what applications have been turned down?
I think hon. Members on this side of the Committee would regard it as most important, no less important now than in times past, that there should be no slackening in the helping of firms in Development Areas. As I have said, the Development Areas constitute, even now, a potential source of economic weakness, and it would be a thousand pities if there were any diminution in the help which is being given to firms which are steered in the direction of Development Areas.
I should be grateful therefore, as I am sure would be the Committee, if the Financial Secretary would give us this extra information, about the operation of Section 4 of the 1945 Act in general and, in particular, the details which I have asked in respect of the Supplementary Estimate itself, not forgetting, I hope, the question of interest rates.

6.58 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: I am sure that the Committee welcomes this Vote. I should not like us to leave this Vote without first having paid tribute to the Development Areas Treasury Advisory Committee. From personal experience, I know that they have done excellent work. The members of that committee have gone to great trouble and have shown great wisdom in assisting the Treasury in this work. It is a very good example of the possibility of bringing together prominent individuals working in a voluntary capacity and those in public service. I think its example might be followed in other matters.
Turning to Section 4 of the Distribution of Industry Act, I notice that we are apparently dealing only with loans. I put it to the Financial Secretary that grants can also be made. I do not know


of any case in which a grant has been made, and I should like to know whether it is now the accepted policy that Section 4 is to be used only for the purpose of making loans. I would also like to know whether the Nuffield Trust still acts in an advisory capacity and whether advantage is taken of the services of that Trust.
Generally, I welcome the opportunity of this debate, but I think that something should be done to provide more publicity and advice about the work of D.A.T.A.C. in administering these loans. I think it inevitable that a firm seeking a loan should first go to the financial institutions and then the financial corporations and finally to D.A.T.A.C. I do not know what the Financial Secretary will say about interest rates and other arrangements. There may be, I hope there is, additional inducement for going through this procedure. But it is sometimes rather difficult for the applicants and it may save a good deal of time if they know the sort of rules of thumb which are applied.
I realise that this is a difficult matter and that one has to pay particular attention to individual circumstances and particular cases. But it might possibly save a good deal of administrative waste if it was made clear that frivolous applications would not be entertained. It might be of value if some guidance was provided for applicants seeking loans.
Another general point which I would make in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. J. Edwards) is that it is clear—indeed, it is part of the purpose of making these loans—that the firm should be given the benefit of the doubt. It is quite clear that loans are given in circumstances where a financial institution responsible to its shareholders would not feel justified in making an advance. It is in those circumstances, under Section 4 of the Act, that an advance is made. I join my hon. Friend in inquiring how real this risk has proved itself to be; how many failures there have been? I am not raising this in a critical sense, but it does reflect on how advantageous this scheme has proved itself.
I also invite the Financial Secretary to say something about the manner in which control and guidance is exercised after the loan is made. I mentioned

D.A.T.A.C. as being something which might prove a useful example in other respects. It may be that the wisdom shown in the administration of these loans, ensuring, in other words, that the loan is used to the best advantage, may prove useful in other ways.
Finally, on the Development Area policy generally, I feel that these loans have served a most useful purpose. I do not wish to appear too pessimistic, but there are signs, as my hon. Friend has said, that in particular parts of the Development Areas there is quite substantial redundancy. This, I know, is largely a matter for the Board of Trade, but I hope that the Financial Secretary can assure us that in pursuing the Development Area policy much more regard is now paid to the different needs of the different parts of the Development Areas and also that in making available these loans particular attention is paid to that.

7.5 p.m.

Mr. George Chetwynd: I would emphasise what has been said by my hon. Friend for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey) about the excellent work done hitherto by the members of D.A.T.A.C. I note that under the Vote we are discussing the expenses of administration have increased by £3,000. I take it that that is due in the main to the extra burden of work which has fallen on this voluntary body and to the increasing scope of their activities. It would be well if the hon. Gentleman could give the names of the present members of this body. I think the public should know the valuable public-spirited work these people are doing in a quite voluntary capacity.
As regards the increase from £750,000 to £1 million in respect of loans to industrial undertakings, every one of us welcomes the fact that that has been made possible. We are all conscious that at the present stage there may be a change of climate in the Development Areas. We seem to have reached the position where firms in the Development Areas have increasingly to struggle in order to maintain their existence.
Many of the firms which came to our help when the first call went out for firms to come into the Development Areas may be in considerable difficulty. It may be that these are the very firms which


in the past, or during this year, have received a loan from D.A.T.A.C. on the understanding, as the Treasury note goes, that there are good prospects of them ultimately being able to carry on successfully without further assistance.
I should like to know if any firms which came into the Development Areas a number of years ago are included in this figure—whether they have had to make, as it were, a second call on Treasury resources. I ask this particularly because recently a firm on a trading estate in my constituency was closed and the vacant premises are now being considered for re-allocation. It was a consumer firm, not engaged on armaments, and not particularly engaged on exports either to dollar or non-dollar areas.
When these firms first came we were anxious to get any kind of firm which would provide employment. It was later that restrictions came into force in that respect. But it is these very firms engaged in consumer goods industries which are in need of assistance, and I would seek some assurance from the hon. Gentleman that in the increase of the figure by £250,000 some regard has been paid to the consumer goods industries. I am really asking whether he can confirm that the work of D.A.T.A.C. has not been entirely restricted by the original terms of reference, which confined it mainly to dollar earners and dollar savers or firms engaged on re-armament work.
It would seem to me that now, with a growing unemployment problem in the Development Areas and the possibility of redundant factory space, this committee should be freed to some extent to give their consideration to the type of firm about which I have been speaking. It has already been emphasised that we should know exactly how many enterprises are covered by this £1 million and, what is more important, to be told, if possible, how many have applied—either existing firms in Development Areas or firms who wish to come to Development Areas—how many have been refused; and how many have actually been turned away from Development Areas and prevented from expanding at all.
The major point we must consider now is the changed circumstances arising from the greater difficulty of industrial firms in obtaining credit through the normal

channels. In the terms of reference of the committee it is clearly stated that undertakings can be assisted only if they are unable to obtain capital on reasonable terms commercially. We immediately disagree on what are reasonable terms.
It may be that the hon. Gentleman considers 4 per cent. reasonable. Some of us would think that unreasonable. Last December when the rate was not 4 per cent. but, I think, 2½ per cent. I asked whether that policy had resulted in there being a restriction upon Development Area firms and whether there had been any kind of decrease in the number of loans it had been possible to make. The answer I got then was that so far no significant change had been noticeable.
A few months have passed in which it has been possible to go into this question. Is it becoming more apparent now that firms in Development Areas are finding it more and more difficult to get loans or credit to carry on their activities? Are they coming to the notice of D.A.T.A.C. and, because of the committee's restricted terms of reference, are they being refused by them? It would be a sorry state of affairs, when we are facing difficulties about employment, when we want all the work we can get in the Development Areas to prevent them from slipping back into the condition they were in the past, if certain consumer goods firms were forced out owing to temporary difficulties about capital.
I ask the Minister, if necessary, to give some instruction to this Committee that they should not be quite so strict about the terms and standards which they apply to firms seeking help from the Treasury. At the same time as they are giving consideration to firms already existing in Development Areas, will they still go ahead with a policy of trying to induce more firms to come in, especially firms which employ men and which will engage in heavy industrial or engineering projects of one kind or another?
It is a sad fact that when there is a danger of a recession throughout the whole of our economy, it is precisely these light and more diversified consumer industries which are the first to suffer. It would be unwise if the Development Areas had to suffer the brunt of that when, by a wise application of policy, we


could get a more stable state of affairs, with factories employing more men in these areas.
I conclude by expressing appreciation of the work which has been done. If the Minister still feels that this £1 million is not enough to satisfy all the demands, I hope that he will not hesitate to ask for a further increase.

7.12 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Price: The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey) made a tentative reference to the possibility that some of the applications made for assistance under these provisions might be frivolous. I am not in a position to discuss the merits of such a situation as that, but I claim to be in a position to discuss the merits of a different propositon which is a matter of deep concern in my constituency in the heart of industrial Lancashire.
In this part of Lancashire there is a local authority, namely, Westhoughton, which has been scheduled as a Development Area since 1946, for reasons which appeared to the authorities at that time to be good and sufficient. At no time during the interval of six years has any new industry whatever been introduced into the area. I have taken some trouble to pursue this question and to make the inquiries which are open to any Member of Parliament. I have received the most courteous attention from hon. Gentlemen opposite who have discussed the matter with me.
I understand that when this certificate was granted to Westhoughton, six years ago, it was because of the disastrous industrial background of this area and its uncertain outlook for the future. There are in this division no fewer than 19 coal mines all of which were closed down between the wars due to flooding. There is a displaced population of miners, possessing all the native skill that one expects from such a community, who have had to travel long distances to find similar work elsewhere or who have been driven out of the industry because it has ceased to operate in the locality.
The disastrous history of unemployment in this part of Lancashire has presented one of the most terrible pictures of privation and suffering in any part of the British Isles. In one small township within the boundaries of my constituency—

The Deputy-Chairman: I am wondering when the hon. Member intends to link this up with the provisions in these Estimates.

Mr. Price: May I put it in this way? I raise this matter from the point of view that this sum of money has no doubt been well spent on worthy districts elsewhere, but I say that my constituency has a claim to a share. I say without apology that not only do I regard the conduct of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite as less satisfactory than I would wish, but—and perhaps if I say it now it will avoid argument later—I do not excuse the previous Administration from some responsibility.
This district is now a Development Area without any actual development taking place; and in one part unemployment rose to as high as 90 per cent. in the bad years with which hon. Members are familiar. In Westhoughton itself there is no industry, apart from four cotton mills. It is all very well to say that the workers can travel elsewhere to find work but, as soon as cotton falls on evil days and a recession occurs—as, I am unhappy to say, is now the case—then the district can lie prostrate. Emergency measures will have to be taken if conditions get worse.
I do not want to exaggerate, but the Lancashire and Cheshire Development Associations, whose meetings I have been privileged to attend on a number of occasions, long ago agreed that there is no satisfactory diversification of industry in this part of Lancashire. The Ministry know that. They have considered the problem from time to time without being able to take any practical action.
In this district facilities are available in the shape of adequate land and suitable sites for industry. There are two railways with two railway stations. The main road to Scotland—

The Deputy-Chairman: I do not think that the hon. Member can go into the details of this argument. He can make the point that his constituency is not getting a fair share of the fund, but I do not think that he can go into the general question of employment.

Mr. Price: I will try to keep in order, Mr. Hopkin Morris.
After the district was scheduled as a Development Area, the local authority


went to considerable expense to make those preparatory arrangements which any prudent authority would make if it anticipated industrial development on any large scale. It expended large sums of public money raised from the rates on new sewerage schemes, new water storage and on a new road to a site which had been promised for a pilot factory. That road ends in a field. Nothing further has been done about it.
The local authority pursued a vigorous housing policy in anticipation of this development but, from a practical point of view, all these efforts proved fruitless.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is not taking notice of what I have said. I have already pointed out that I do not think that he can go into the detailed argument. He has made the point that his constituency is not getting a fair share from the fund. He is not entitled to go into the whole question of employment in his division.

Mr. Price: Very well; I will try to keep in order this time.
I do not feel very tolerant about this. I have not been in this House for many months, but I have already learned a good many things. One of the strangest things I have learned in the last few days is that the control of the Development Areas is in the keeping of the Secretary of State for Overseas Trade, which surprises me very considerably. I am not saying that in any critical sense, but seems to be a very peculiar facet of the administration of government.

Mr. Percy Collick: It is only since this Government came in.

Mr. Price: I want to mention one or two of the economic consequences of the failure to develop the Westhoughton district.

The Deputy-Chairman: That is a point which I have already told the hon. Gentleman he cannot develop on this Vote.

Mr. Price: I do not wish to be unfair about this, and I commend the good work that has already been done in developing industries in other parts of the country which badly needed new industries, and I am making my protest tonight, I hope temperately and fairly, because my own

district has had the label of Development Area put upon it but has not had any of the goods delivered which we were entitled to expect. [Interruption.] I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman wishes to help me with that argument, but if he wishes to intervene I will give way to him.
The cotton industry is now established in my district on a small scale, and I think this will be in order. [Laughter.] Well, it is almost impossible to link this up directly with this particular question. Here am I pleading tonight for the introduction of some industries to develop the Westhoughton district, and, at the same time, I understand that, at a high level in the cotton industry, there is a very widely held opinion that it is not desirable to bring other industries into competition with the cotton industry for the available labour supply, which is needed by the cotton industry when cotton is booming. In that case, I think it is a matter for inquiry by the responsible Minister, because this is something which is entirely opposed to the economic interests not only of Westhoughton, but of the country as a whole.
I want to say a few words about the failure, by the Government machine, regardless of its political complexion, to carry out, in the sense in which they were intended to be carried out by this House, the provisions of the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945. In spite of everything that was said by authorities competent to speak on these matters at the time, it is true that great cities like London, Manchester and Birmingham continue to grow like great octopi without apparent restraint.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman cannot discuss that question on this Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Price: The final point which I would like to make, if I am permitted to make it, is that of linking up this question of the introduction of badly needed new industries in all these areas with a wider question, which is a matter for the Government to consider at the appropriate time. The wider question is the chronic state of overcrowding in great cities like Salford, which is some miles from Westhoughton, and from which 20,000 people are expecting to be removed to Westhoughton. I say that


it is no use bringing people to industrial deserts unless we take the work there for them to do, and make it possible for them to earn their living when they are transferred to these areas.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. A. Blenkinsop: I think we all sympathise with my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. T. Price), who has managed, after all, to develop a very comprehensive argument about the whole question of Development Areas in general. I think we all sympathise with him, because we all have very many of these problems in our own constituencies, and because we well understand my hon. Friend's anxiety that they should be voiced.
I think we all welcome the introduction of this Supplementary Estimate as a sign of the desire of the Government to carry on the work that was developed during the past six years, and perhaps our only anxiety tonight is whether the sum provided is really adequate to meet the demands which are made upon it.

The Deputy-Chairman: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is going to suggest an increase, but, if so, that would be out of order.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I shall be very careful to insist that, while I regard this particular Estimate as low, I am not making any proposals to the Committee that it should be increased
I want to ask a certain number of questions, and hope to receive some information, about the application of the money—£250,000—provided for in this Estimate for the particular area with which I am chiefly concerned—the northeastern area of England. I am particularly interested to find out to what extent these grants are made available to industries that are going into Development Areas, but not necessarily on to the trading estates themselves.
I have in mind, for example, certain sites on both sides of the River Tyne that are at the moment undeveloped, and for which there are claimants, if suitable loans could be made available, and I would hope that cases of that kind, both in my own division in Newcastle and on the other side of the river in Gateshead, could be dealt with within these figures provided in the Estimate.
I am not clear whether that would be ruled out because they are not proposing to develop within the trading estates themselves, and therefore, would not come within the particular field of the North-Eastern Trading Estates Company, which has done such valuable work with the use of funds provided in these Estimates.
I should also like to know, concerning the firms referred to in the last Report of the North-Eastern Trading Estates Ccmpany—certain firms in process of development on trading estates, and also certain firms making inquiries for factory space—whether, in the view of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, this particular Estimate will enable these schemes to go forward. There is a great deal of anxiety in the North-East on whether there is to be a further damping down of new development work and of the introduction of new firms into that area.
I would emphasise the comments made by at least two of my hon. Friends, and would say that certainly we in the northeast—and I am sure that this applies to other Development Areas—do not feel very safe with the industrial provision which exists at the present time. There is a heavy concentration of heavy armaments work, and we are anxious lest, if that work is fairly quickly completed and we have to reduce that heavy concentration of armaments work, it will be possible to get the benefit of the more diversified industry which is being provided on these trading estates, and that there should not be any holding back of that work because of the very real doubts which we all have in our minds concerning the future prospects of some of the major heavy industries in that area.
I would also slightly expand the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. J. Edwards), who asked the Financial Secretary whether he could give any information about the rates of interest on loans. I gather that the higher rates of interest which are now charged have had the effect of turning away a number of firms who previously had intended to develop.
I should like to know from the Financial Secretary whether he has any information on these lines. I hope he will recognise that there is very strong


feeling in the north-east that we cannot rely on the armaments trade which is being provided at the present time for the future balanced development of this area. I hope that we shall get an undertaking from the hon. Gentleman tonight that there will be no diminution of encouragement to firms coming into these areas to try to ensure their future stable development.

7.31 p.m.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: I want to emphasise the point just made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop). We are living in very acute financial times, but I hope that the Board of Trade will always see that they get from the Treasury all the money necessary to carry on the good work done in the Development Areas since 1945. If the Board of Trade are anxious that that work, for which they are largely responsible, should bear full fruit, then it is necessary for the new Government to do what the late Government did as far as the distribution of raw materials in short supply is concerned.
It is of little purpose to erect factories unless the raw materials are available. The late Government always saw that firms in Development Areas received a special allocation of any materials in short supply. That was necessary because many of the firms in those areas are what one may term subsidiaries of parent companies in another part of the country. If they do not get special preference in the supply of raw materials for being in those areas, then there is the danger that in times like the present some of them will close down and will transfer any available material to the parent company outside the Development Area.
That would be catastrophic because it would mean that the pre-war fears, anxieties and experiences of those who have to work and live in the areas would return. I hope, therefore, that besides seeing that this development work continues, the Board of Trade will take the necessary action to ensure that the raw materials are made available to manufacturers in these areas.
I want to raise the question of a factory which was to be built in Jarrow. I put down a Question to the Treasury on this matter, but as it comes under the Board

of Trade I would like to raise it today. Due to the fact that unemployment in Jarrow has remained heavier than in any other part of the country, despite the good work done by the late Government in this respect, we have never had less than 4 per cent. unemployed. Some 12 or 15 months ago the Board of Trade promised that a further factory should be erected in my division, but I am afraid that the claims of re-armament have stepped in and that we are not now to get that factory.
However, I should like to be able to assure my constituents that as and when the opportunity presents itself for a relaxation in re-armament the firm undertaking given to me by the Labour Government will be honoured by the present Administration, and that facilities will be provided for that factory to be erected.
I believe that of all the work that has been done for the industrial benefit of the country during the last six years none has been more important than that carried out in the Development Areas. Therefore, I hope that the new Administration will maintain the same lively interest in these areas as that shown by the late Government.
I believe that is essential for good industrial relations, because unless the people in these areas really believe that they will never return to the bad old days, any misgivings they may have on that score will not be confined to their particular areas but will spread throughout the country. Having regard to the need at the present time to maintain the maximum production of our industries, this matter deserves the Government's constant and sympathetic attention.

7.36 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Thompson: The point raised by the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) is precisely the point I wish to put to the Committee. I, too, hope that the work that has gone on during the last six years in the Development Areas will be sustained and encouraged by the new Administration. It is not quite right to imagine that this work of special area development only began in some period since 1945, although it is certainly true that what has been done since then has been good and ought to be maintained and encouraged.

Mr. Fernyhough: It began in Jarrow during that period.

Mr. J. Edwards: I think the hon. Gentleman opposite will agree that what we are discussing today is what happened since 1945, because we are discussing Section 4 of the 1945 Act.

Mr. Thompson: It is exactly to that point that I want to draw the attention of my hon. Friend who will reply to this debate.
Today, these areas cover a very high proportion of the total industrial area of the country, and a sum of this kind, which, I fear, I cannot propose should be increased, may not be sufficient to fulfil the demands made upon it. That being so, I hope my hon. Friend will not have the slightest hesitation in asking for a further Supplementary Estimate of even larger proportions if that proves necessary.
These funds are made available to industries which find difficulty in raising their finances in other ways. That brings me to a point which is of great difficulty to certain small firms of the type which are or may be attracted to these areas. I want the Minister constantly to satisfy himself that the conditions attaching to such loans, while necessarily stringent, are not so severe as to discourage industry from approaching the Treasury for funds when they feel able to use them for development and for the provision of further employment in these areas.
If my hon. Friend is satisfied that the conditions are sufficiently attractive to the small industries to enable them to take advantage of them, then I am sure that this Committee will support both this Supplementary Estimate and any others for which it is thought necessary to ask.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. Percy Collick: I think I am right in saying that no hon. Member of this Committee has any objection at all to this Supplementary Estimate, and that most of us, at least on this side, wish that it was even bigger.
I rise, however, to seek information which I hope the Financial Secretary, who presumably will reply, or his colleague the Secretary for Overseas Trade, will be able to give us. The Supplementary Estimate covers the sum of £250,000 which has been loaned to

industrial undertakings. 1 should very much value information as to how much of that £250,000 applies to the Birkenhead side of the Merseyside Development Area.
Comment has been made, quite rightly, on the good work done generally in the Development Areas. I am sure we are all agreed about that; and those of us who are connected with Merseyside particularly know only too well that one of the best acts of the last Government was their application to Merseyside of the benefits of the Development Areas plan.
Can the Financial Secretary also intimate to the Committee if there is any change at all in Government policy on Development Areas'? I was very glad to hear the hon. Member for Walton (Mr. K. Thompson) urging that the Government should not only continue this kind of work, which has been done so well, but should even increase it. I am sure that all my hon. Friends will endorse that plea.
Because of happenings in my own division, I am asking the Financial Secretary whether there has been any change of policy. Unfortunately, by virtue of the fact that we have so little land available for new buildings, we have not had the maximum amount of benefit that the people in my constituency would have liked to see. We have had some benefit, but we had just reached the stage when we were anticipating the building of a really big new factory. It is in the highest interests of the country that it should be built since the product which would come from it is one which would go mainly to dollar markets. It is a product which represents a tremendously important industry in which the firm concerned would have a very great advantage if they were allowed to develop.
While we were all looking forward to this new industry coming into the area and to the new factory being built, and when everything was ready for it to go ahead, the new Government came into being and as one of their first acts imposed a ban on new building. As I understood it, that ban was to apply for two months. The present Government have now been in office for nearly five months and we are still in the difficulty that, despite all the representations we


have made both directly to the regional offices and, through me, to the Ministers concerned, we can get no satisfaction whatever on this matter.
It is a matter of extreme urgency. The urgency of it has been made apparent to the President of the Board of Trade, but as yet none of us connected with Merseyside, and with Birkenhead in particular, knows what is the answer. All the information we have is that the President of the Board of Trade is apparently in conversation or in contact with his colleague, the Minister of Supply. We go to and fro like this, valuable weeks go by and we still cannot obtain a decision.
I should like the Minister, if he can, to indicate the reason for the failure to make a decision in this case with some degree of reasonable promptitude. I think the Financial Secretary and the Secretary for Overseas Trade will readily agree with me that three or four months are enough time in which to make decision on these matters. Why are we still without a decision, and what is the policy of the Government?
Naturally the firms concerned have their own great difficulties to contend with, and the estate companies also have their own difficulties. There is in this Supplementary Estimate an estimate for £3,000 for extra administrative charges, and I wonder how much of that £3,000 is due to answering correspondence because of the Government's own delay in arriving at a decision. The amount must be considerable. When the ban on new building was imposed, the office staffs who deal with the erection of new factories were held up pending a Government decision as to what was to happen when the two months were over. As far as I know, even now no clear decision has been given to the House of Commons about what the Government are doing after the expiry of the two months.
What happens now to applications for new building licences? Is there to be—as I hope there will be—a different decision about new building in Development Areas? Is it the policy of the present Government still to direct work into Development Areas rather than elsewhere? These are tremendously important matters to all the Development Areas. One would presume that even the present

Government would see to it that there was a decision favourable to the Development Areas as against other parts of the country in matters of this kind.
When industrialists, as in this case which I have quoted, are constantly pressing people like myself and others concerned to try to get a decision from the Government, I think the Government should pay some heed and hasten a decision. I do not want to delay the Committee, so I will not now quote another comparable case in my own division. There are two cases about which I have been bothering the Department for a decision.
I am glad to see the Secretary for Overseas Trade on the Government Front Bench. I beg him to get his colleague the President of the Board of Trade to make a decision or if, as in the case of his predecessor in the last Government, he himself has some responsibility in the matter, I beg him to make that decision, unless, of course, we are to hear an announcement indicating some real departure from the policy of the former Government in this matter.

7.48 p.m.

Mr. H. Boardman: I am very glad this is a non-party matter, otherwise it might be suggested that there is another split in the Labour Party. Here we have my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Collick) pleading for Merseyside, though I should like to tell him that there are many people in Lancashire who feel that the Merseyside area has been dealt with much too favourably in comparison with the rest of the county. If he attended meetings of the Lancashire Development Association he would know how true that is.
I make no complaint about what has been done for Merseyside. I think that, generally speaking, very good work has been done under the Development Area plan, and I should like to congratulate the Secretary for Overseas Trade on what has been done. Not very long ago there were 28,000 men unemployed on Merseyside. Now the figure is considerably less, directly as a result of this policy.
But in Lancashire generally, and in the Manchester area in particular, there is a feeling that more might have been done inside the cotton belt itself I am not surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. T. Price) was so


enthusiastic, because there are parts of his constituency which had 90 per cent. of its insured population unemployed. Those of us who are connected with the cotton belt feel we must take a long view on diversity of industry; and if we are to have diversity of industry we must have the aid of this development plan.
I am sure that taking the short view the Government have been right in saying we (must sacrifice cotton for the sake of dollars, but I am equally certain that, taking the long view, we cannot afford to postpone consideration of diversity of industry very much longer. We cannot afford to do it, because if we do, the alternative is that there will be mass migration from the cotton towns, and the one thing that will certainly follow is that we shall not get the youngsters going into the cotton mills when they leave school, as they are doing at the moment.
I rose really to ask two questions. I want to know from the Financial Secretary what proportion of this £1 million actually went into the Merseyside area and what proportion went into the cotton towns of Lancashire. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman will be able to give us those figures, but it would give satisfaction to people in the cotton belt if those figures could be given. If we cannot have them tonight, perhaps we may have them at a later stage.
I hope—I know that we are dealing with the year 1951–52—that this additional Estimate for £250,000 is evidence of an expansion in development areas and that it will allow the building of more factories and the granting of greater diversity in the Lancashire cotton area.

7.51 p.m.

Mrs. E. M. Braddock: I would not have taken part in this debate except for the comments which have been made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. K. Thompson). I wish to place on record the fact that the reason the Merseyside Development Area scheme was so late in being put into operation was that the Conservative majority on the Liverpool City Council refused to have anything to do with it.
I want to ask two questions of the Financial Secretary. Can he say how many factories have been built in the

Merseyside Development Area since the inception of the area? Can he say how much money has been spent and how many people have been employed in the area since its establishment? The area was established because of the very high unemployment figures that we have always had in the Liverpool area, and I should like to know to what extent that unemployment has been reduced since the scheme was put into operation.
I am told that some of the directors of the Development Area are dissatisfied at the small amount of assistance they have received, whereas when the area was first established they had the impression that the scheme would provide considerable development and employment in Merseyside. I should like to know what is the position there.

7.53 p.m.

Mr. S. S. Awbery: This increase in the Estimate from £750,000 to £1 million gives the impression that the Government are doing all they possibly can to encourage the Development Areas. I should like to know how the Minister can reconcile this apparent encouragement to these areas with the fact that the Treasury has increased the charges to industry from 3 per cent. to 4 and 4½ per cent.

7.54 p.m.

Mr. J. R. Bevins: I wish to intervene to rectify a misleading impression which may have been created by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock), who said, a few moments ago, that Merseyside had not been scheduled as a Development Area for a long time because of the opposition of Conservative interests on the Merseyside.
The hon. Lady knows perfectly well that Sir Stafford Cripps, in 1948, I think, agreed with the local authority in Liverpool that it would not be appropriate to schedule Merseyside as a Development Area. When, at a later date, the proposition was again put forward and circumstances were rather different, the Conservative Party in Liverpool agreed to the suggestion that it should be made a Development Area.
I rose solely to make it clear beyond any dispute at all that the desire of the Conservative Party in Liverpool was shared and endorsed by Sir Stafford Cripps.

Mr. Boardman: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that one reason for the lateness of the scheduling of Merseyside was due directly to the opposition of Alderman Shennan and not Sir Stafford Cripps?

The Temporary Chairman (Colonel Alan Gomme-Duncan): This is going rather wide of the matter under discussion. As to which party in the Merseyside local authorities did this or that does not arise from the Estimate which we are discussing.

Mrs. Braddock: But with respect, the hon. Gentleman is completely wrong and I do not think this matter ought to be left like that. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do—

The Temporary Chairman: If the hon. Lady will forgive me, discussion of that matter is out of order on both sides of the Committee and, therefore, it must come to an end.

7.56 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): I can assure you, Colonel Gomme-Duncan, that I will not incur your wrath by seeking to intervene in a discussion on Liverpool politics. I should like to say how agreeable it is for a Minister presenting a Supplementary Estimate to the Committee to have it received in the way in which this one has been received, with the main criticism, so far as I understand it, had the Rules of Order permitted it to be voiced, that the Supplementary Estimate was not big enough. It certainly smooths the path of a Minister whose duty is to commend to the Committee a request for additional funds.
I would say at once how much I appreciate the very proper tributes which have been paid by a number of hon. Members to those public-spirited individuals who carry out the work of what is colloquially known by its initials as D.A.T.A.C. I shall certainly follow the suggestion which was made by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey) and remind the Committee of the names of some of the members of that body, because in this context I think it is a proper thing to do.
The Chairman is a well known chartered accountant, Mr. Barrie, and the members include a number of business

men from different parts of the country. There is Mr. Roney, of London, who, as hon. Members may know, was previously associated with the Nuffield Trust for the then Special Areas, and who has very great experience of the social problems which arise in those Areas. Scotland is represented by Mr. Jackson-Millar, the North-Eastern area by Mr. Summerson and Mr. West-Byng, Wales by Mr. Williams—

Mr. Awbery: Which one?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The one who is a member of D.A.T.A.C. The last addition to this list—made, I am glad to say, under the present Government—is a former distinguished Member of this House and trade unionist, Mr. Tom Williamson. I should like to express my gratitude to those men for the very hard job they do.
Before I come to answer the individual questions, of which there have been a good many, I think it might assist the Committee if I were to state precisely what this Supplementary Estimate relates to. The sum is £253,000, divided into an item of £3,000 for expenses of administration—and I assure the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Collick) that it is not for the purpose of answering his letters—and £250,000 for loans to industrial undertakings in Development Areas. The £3,000, in fact, relates to the need for slight additional expenditure in providing technical assistance—engineering and other professional advice in the development of these schemes. It relates to that over the whole field.
The £250,000 loan which it is necessary to ask the Commitee to authorise relates, for all practical purposes, to one scheme only, which I think may be of some considerable interest to hon. Members. The Committee will be aware that the need for sulphuric acid has been very serious during the last two years, and there is a very large project—in fact I am advised that it is the largest project ever undertaken under this scheme—which is being carried out at Whitehaven, in Cumberland, by a firm called Solway Chemicals Limited, for the production of sulphuric acid on a very large scale. The total cost of the scheme will be £1,700,000.
The need to come to the Committee for this Supplementary Estimate of £250,000 arises from the fact that good progress


is being made with this scheme and it appears probable that expenditure of this order will arise in the current financial year. Hence it has been necessary to seek Parliamentary authority for this expenditure in this year without waiting for the main Estimates next year.

Mr. Chetwynd: Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will not bite into the original £750,000 provided under the original Estimate, to deal with this one particular development? If we thought that the rest of the industries were being deprived of money for the benefit of one firm, I think our views would be different.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I cannot give the hon. Member an assurance in pounds, shillings and pence with regard to the reaction on the main Estimate, but he will appreciate that as we are coming forward with this Supplementary Estimate of £250,000 and this particular project is estimated to cost £250,000, it does show that this scheme will not affect at all materially other projects authorised during the past financial year.
I should like to re-assure my hon. Friend, the Member for Walton (Mr. K. Thompson) and one or two others, who have asked whether we should be prepared to come to the House again if the need were shown, by pointing out that we are within 12 days of the end of the current financial year, and though I shall seek to show very clearly the Government's determination to carry out their policy, it is extremely improbable that there will be any need to trouble the Committee with a Supplementary Estimate between now and the 31st of this month. This matter arises simply because good progress has been made with this scheme. The amounts involved are large, and the expenditure falls within the financial year 1951–52 and not 1952–53.

Mr. J. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman is talking about the amount which falls in this year and not the total commitment on this scheme?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Exactly. If I may seek to allay any apprehensions which hon. Members may have as to the general application of this scheme, I simply invite their attention to figures which are already available in the Vote on Account. Hon. Members will there see that the effect of this Supplementary

Estimate—if the Committee authorises it—will be to raise expenditure under this Vote in the current financial year to a total of £1,008,010, whereas, as appears from the preceding column in the Vote on Account, the estimate for the year 1952–53 will be very nearly double that figure. It will be £1,910,010.
I think these figures should reassure the Committee that this Government, so far from having any intention of abandoning these schemes, are going to make financial provision under this head on a considerably larger scale than was made last year. I hope that will suffice to reassure hon. Members, particularly those who represent the areas which are directly affected, and who are very properly concerned that continued attention should be given to these schemes.
Some hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Birkenhead and the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) gave examples of particular factories or schemes which affected their constituencies. As the Committee will have observed, the Secretary for Overseas Trade, who is the Minister directly concerned with individual schemes, has been in his place throughout this debate, and he authorises me to say that he has taken note of what has been said by the hon. Members concerned and that he would be very glad to discuss with each of them the present state of the matters which they have in mind and what are the possibilities of future action. The Committee will appreciate that that is a matter for him and not for me, and therefore I cannot carry that particular matter any further.
I think it would be convenient if I reminded the Committee—because I think it is not wholly clear to all hon. Members—what is the procedure for the carrying out of particular schemes. I do not think I can do better than remind the Committee of what was said by my hon. and learned Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, on the discussion of this issue on 7th December last. He said:
As the hon. Member is aware the principle on which these advances are made is governed by Section 4 of the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945. In effect, three conditions have to be satisfied: first, that the Board of Trade approves the undertaking as complying with the requirements of the proper distribution of industry; secondly, that the Treasury is satisfied, in accordance with the recommen-


dations of the Development Areas Treasury Advisory Committee, that the undertaking has good prospects of ultimately being able to carry on without further Government finance and thirdly, that the undertaking cannot, for the time being, obtain capital on reasonable terms commercially.
Those, as the hon. Member will agree, are the three conditions. So I think that his question to me is how is that now going to work? Well, the policy continues unchanged. With the policy remaining unchanged he may ask, how far will the number of eligible allocations increase or decrease? I can only tell him this, that so far there is no significant change noticeable in either direction."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th December, 1951; Vol. 494, c. 2807.]

Mr. Chetwynd: The difference is that at that time the Bank rate was 2½ per cent. and today it is 4 per cent. or over. Surely that has some reaction on the demands coming forward?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I understand that that is not the case. The fact is that the Government are making very nearly twice the contribution under this head than was made last year.
The hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. J. Edwards) asked me a specific question on interest rates. I do not think there is any need for apprehension in that sphere.

Mr. J. Edwards: It is perfectly true that the Estimates for next year are larger, but I think the Committee would be in a better position to judge the real significance of that if the Financial Secretary would tell us the number of schemes in the two years. If, as I suspect, next year's Estimate is big because of one very big project, it may be that in fact we are not giving help to a larger number of firms.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The number of firms dealt with in any year depends on the number of applications which successfully survive the three processes which were set out in the extract from my hon. and learned Friend's speech which I read to the Committee a moment or two ago. I call the Estimate in aid only as giving tangible evidence that we do not fear the effects which the hon. Gentleman anticipates; but I must say, if he is referring to the decision announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week, that, were that to have any effect, it could not have manifested itself as early as this, and, consequently, it would be quite impossible for

me to give him any details in that respect.

Mr. Chetwynd: My point is that the firms will not now be able to get help in the normal way from the banks and credit houses, and they will have to come increasingly to D.A.T.A.C. for assistance. What the hon. Gentleman was saying bears out the point that more and more firms will be coming to D.A.T.A.C. for assistance, and I hope that the terms of reference will be amended accordingly, so that many of those who have fallen by the wayside in the past will not do so in the future.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not see that on the present terms of reference there can be any difficulties arising from that particular source. The hon. Member has expressed his point of view, and it will be noted, and, if necessary, looked into.
I now pass to the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough and offer him my apology for not being in my place when he began his speech. I think that he will appreciate from his own experience that the "usual channels" do not always function with complete punctuality. I have, however, a note of the points he made and I will attempt to deal with them.
First, he asked about the system, and whether the system at present being operated is the same as the system that previously operated. The answer to that is "Yes." Then he asked whether an assurance could be given that there would be no slackening in these developments. The financial figures which I have given have shown that, overall, far from there being a slackening, there will be whatever is the converse of slackening, and I am afraid that my vocabulary does not enable me to provide the precise expression at the moment.
All these schemes, like every other, come within the needs of defence, the export trade and priorities among themselves, and are affected by the shortage of steel. But, subject to that, the intentions of the Government are, I think, made very clear by the financial provision which we are making, and to which I have already referred.
The hon. Gentleman asked me what would be the rate of interest borne on these advances. The rate of interest in


each case is fixed with relation to the normal commercial terms ruling at the time, and as the result of current policies will tend to rise.
I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the figure for two very good reasons, first, because it varies in accordance with different projects, and, second, because I understand that it is not, and never has been, the practice to disclose the rate of interest paid in any particular case. There are obvious commercial objections, not least from the point of view of the firm concerned, to any such disclosure.
I think that there is a great deal in the suggestion of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North, that publicity should be given, not only to the beneficent activities of D.A.T.A.C., but also to the conditions under which advances are made. Those were most helpful and constructive suggestions, and I assure him that very good note has been taken of them.
A number of points were raised by hon. Members, which, I think, I have to some extent covered in the course of my general remarks. Perhaps I may repeat at least two of them. The fact is that this Supplementary Estimate does not relate to the matters which they had in mind; it relates, as I have already told the Committee, to one specific project, with the addition of £3,000 for expert assistance, and, therefore, does not of itself relate to the projects which they had in mind.
I am sorry that I cannot give the figures for which the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) asked. They do not affect this Supplementary Estimate, but I have no doubt that if the hon. Lady approaches the Board of Trade on this matter, such figures as are available will be given to her. I am afraid that I cannot give them to her tonight, and that remark also applies to my hon. Friend the Member for Walton.
As for the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. T. Price), who apologised to the Committee for what he described as his inexperience and for getting into difficulties with the Rules of Order, I think that he put his case with the adroitness and skill that Parliamentarians with 40 years' experience would have been proud to have displayed, in that he succeeded in saying what he wanted to say

on behalf of his constituents, and which, if I may say so, was very properly said.
I hope that I shall not get into trouble with you, Sir Charles, over the Rules of Order, but as the hon. Member knows, the Secretary for Overseas Trade is familiar with the matters in question. I understand that the hon. Member has been in touch with him on this issue, and my hon. Friend says that he is always ready to continue those discussions with the hon. Member.
As to the future, an aspect which I think was raised by the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd), I have already gone as far as and perhaps even further than the Rules of Order permit, in giving a clear indication of the intentions of the Government. May I recapitulate them? We are making the financial provision I have mentioned on an increased scale. We are pushing on with the scheme which we inherited from the late Administration. The general working of that scheme remains unchanged, and we accept and indeed endorse what has been said by a number of hon. Members as to the value of that scheme, not only to the areas concerned, but to the community as a whole.
This Estimate, as I have said, gives us an additional figure of £250,000 in the current financial year. I hope that hon. Members will now be prepared, in view of the facts that I have tried to put before the Committee, to authorise us to make that expenditure.
I am advised, although I cannot think so—and perhaps I may be corrected if I am wrong—that the speech of the hon. Member for Westhoughton was a maiden speech. In that case, I must offer my apologies, as must hon. Members who followed him, for not offering the congratulations which are always customary, and, if the hon. Member will allow me to say so, are in this case most richly deserved. I think that he will allow me to reiterate my respectful admiration for his skill with the Rules of Order, and I hope that the Committee and the House may have an opportunity of hearing him on many occasions in future, both in and out of order.

Mr. J. Edwards: May I associate myself with what the Financial Secretary has just said. I, too, was completely unaware that we were listening to a maiden speech from the hon. Member for


Westhoughton (Mr. T. Price), and I am sure that we all congratulate him.
May I press the Financial Secretary on one point. It is true that he was not here when I asked my questions, but I understand that the Secretary for Overseas Trade took a note of what I asked him. Will he tell us how many cases had been dealt with under Section 4 of the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, and what the total commitments were, agreed or approved? What amounts had been advanced and what amounts had been written off? I think that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if the Financial Secretary would tell us that. I also ask him if he can tell us what happened under Section 3 of the 1950 Act, where provision is made for loans for somewhat similar purposes.
I know that the Financial Secretary is in some difficulty about quoting actual cases, but surely there would be nothing wrong in his giving us the range of interest rates in operation at present, which would help us. Perhaps he will say whether I am right in concluding that the policy of Her Majesty's Government now is to reduce investment in the country as a whole but that there is no intention whatever of reducing the volume of investment in the Development Areas.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I had a note of the figures for which he asked and I had intended to give them to him. The amount of principal outstanding at the moment is £2,500,000, further commitments are £1,900,000 and losses so far have been £150,000. On the first occasion, but not on this one, I believe the hon. Member asked for the number of companies involved. They are 25 in England, 22 in Wales and 13 in Scotland. I always hesitate to give such figures because, although they may be gratifying to one section of the Committee, they may be disagreeable to another.
With regard to interest rates, I am sorry that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a figure which would help him at all. These figures must reflect whatever

the general commercial rates may be at the time, and at a time when a certain flexibility is contemplated it is particularly difficult to give a figure which would not be misleading to the Committee. When, on top of that, the figure may, and, indeed, will, vary as between one concern and another, it is very difficult to give the hon. Gentleman a figure, and I am afraid that I cannot do it.
I have made it clear, in reply to the hon. Gentleman's other questions, that, subject, of course, to the difficulties imposed by the overriding needs of defence and exports, which compel a certain discrimination in the matter of particular projects, and subject to the physical difficulties imposed by the limited quantities of steel available—a factor which bears particularly on factory construction, since that involves a very heavy use of steel—the very figures which I have put to the Committee and on which I have already relied several times, answer him. It is desired to maintain these schemes and to expand them.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £253,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for financial assistance to industrial undertakings in Development Areas, including remanet expenditure in respect of similar assistance in former Special Areas.

VOTE 8. MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,620,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, and of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, including grants, grants in aid and expenses in respect of agricultural education and research; services in connection with live stock; land settlement; land drainage; purchase, adaptation, development and management of land; agricultural credits and marketing; the prevention of food infestation; agricultural training and settlement schemes; fishery organisation, research and development; and sundry other services.

AGRICULTURE

8.24 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Fell: The few points which I wish to make may be small, but they could be important. We have recently suffered a tremendous epidemic of foot and mouth disease, particularly in Norfolk and Suffolk, and we have recently been notified that the disease has broken out again in East Anglia. This must be a very disturbing factor not only because of the loss to farmers in East Anglia, but also because of the loss of food to the nation.
I see from the explanation accompanying the Vote that no less than £600,000 is needed for compensation to owners of animals slaughtered for foot and mouth disease. I wonder whether anything more can be done to cope with this dread disease, which kills so many of our animals. It is a terrible disease in that it is a respecter of no animal. It affects the finest pedigree herds just the same as any other cattle.
We are told that it is thought that the disease comes from the Continent and may be carried to this country by starlings. I am told that it is an endemic disease on the Continent. Having regard to this huge expenditure of money, ought we not to consider trying to prevent the disease from spreading to our shores instead of slaughtering cattle and spending all this money in compensation? I know that this is a tremendous problem because the disease is endemic in parts of the Continent, but has the matter been tackled on an international scale? Would it be possible to get together with the countries in Europe which are closest to us, and from which the disease spreads to Britain, and create an international fund for the express purpose of tackling the disease at its source, namely, on the Continent, where it is endemic?
I do not suggest that this would be an easy problem to overcome, but it is worth while studying it for more than one reason. If the disease could be cured in Europe, even though it took many years, it would be well worth our while taking very energetic action to cope with it, for it is hitting not only Europe but also this country very hard from the points of view of loss of food, loss to farmers and loss of exports of valuable cattle and livestock. I hope that it will be possible to give some thought to this matter.

8.28 p.m.

Mr. Archer Baldwin: I should like to say a few words about the enormous sum of money which we are now asked to vote additionally, totalling £1,620,000. Taking the Vote in its order, I should like to say a word about the first item, salaries. The agricultural community must do its best to reduce expenses, which are now bearing so heavily upon the country. Could my hon. Friend explain how this enormous sum of over £5 million for salaries is paid, and whether he will not reduce that figure when he makes his estimates for another year?
I know that it will be hard on some people, and I want to alleviate that hardship as much as possible by suggesting that in reducing staffs the reduction should not be among older people, who are now giving, and have given, the best of their lives to the industry, but rather that the reduction should be made by stopping the intake of young people into the industry. It would be better for some of those young people to strike out in the world either on the land and do a job of work themselves, or do what their forefathers did before them and go out into the Empire and develop it rather than be absorbed in non-productive work.
On the subject of Agricultural Research Grants in Aid, I have little to say except that there is a tendency to think that the troubles on a farm would be fewer if only more institutes and colleges were erected and run. I am all in favour of a certain number of colleges and institutes, but it can be easily overdone. In my county we have two, and a third is projected. I am glad to know that at the moment the activities of the third have been suspended until we can see where we are. I am very glad to know that, and I hope that consideration will not be given to any further projects.
I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) on the matter he has raised, for it is something of great importance. I am not greatly surprised at the total of the original Estimate nor the additional sum required, because it would be impossible, when framing the Estimates, to realise the extent of the outbreak of foot and


mouth disease which we experienced recently. I agree with the policy of slaughter. There are some critics who say that the life of the animal should be saved and that it would be better to cure rather than to kill.
I do not agree with that, because it would mean that, like the Continent, we should have the disease with us permanently, and it would close down our important export trade. At present that trade is closed down in England because the epidemic is still continuing, and it is having a serious effect on our export trade.
I agree with the sums that have been spent on slaughtering, and I think the suggestion of my hon. Friend about endeavouring to contact the Continent to see whether some steps cannot be taken to wipe out this foul disease is something which should be followed up. It would not only be in our interests, but in the interests of the Continent. Their losses during the course of 12 months must be extraordinary.
This disease must spread to us from the Continent, because the outbreaks always seem to be on the eastern side of Great Britain. Occasionally we have an outbreak in the west, but it has never penetrated far enough west to reach Ireland, with one exception, and Scotland has been entirely free from the disease, except for the recent outbreak.
I should like some information on Votes J.3, J.6 and J.7. I do not know why it is necessary to have a Vote for the management and farming of land. I would have thought that, in view of all that the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans) has said about the profits from farming, that no further grants would be needed as they could be met out of those profits. I am rather surprised to see that he is not here to attack what he must consider unnecessary expenditure. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is."] I am glad to see that the hon. Member has now arrived. I saw him earlier in the afternoon and I thought he was waiting for this particular Vote; probably he was.
We get a certain amount of credit under some of the items relating to the advisory service, the research grants and the training schemes. I have no criticism to make of the grants for land drainage,

but I would like my hon. Friend to say what the £680,000 for the saving on the purchase of land is for. Would my hon. Friend tell us what it really means? There is an item "Destructive Insects and Pests." I have very strong feelings about it. The time has come when farmers should destroy insects and pests at their own expense, and not call upon the Ministry to do it. If they want the Ministry to do it, the service should be self-supporting. We should not have to call upon the taxpayer to pay for it.
With regard to the agricultural training schemes, as in other walks of life a lot too much money has been spent on this so-called training. I should be out of order if I were to mention the scheme for the training of domestic servants, which absorbs a great deal of money which would be better spent in putting girls into houses, perhaps with farmers' wives who would teach them how to do their job. Instead of spending a lot of money on agricultural training schemes at colleges, and so forth, it would be much better to apprentice these young men to working, practical farmers. It could be done without any expense to the community at all, and the young men would become better farmers for having had experience on a farm than by going to a college.
That is all I wanted to say about this Vote. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to enlighten me, particularly on the item "Management and Farming of Land." I cannot conceive why the money should be wanted, considering the enormous profits which farmers are said to be making. It may be that there is a certain amount of bovine complacency on the part of the Ministry in running these farms. I would like to know whether the Minister agrees, or whether the people running these farms are using too many dinner jackets and going out at night. Alternatively, will my hon. Friend say whether the money is wanted for deck chairs so that the Ministry can sit and run these schemes?

8.38 p.m.

Mr. J. B. Godber: I do not want to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) too closely in the remarks that he has been making, except that I would say something about the item of £150,000 to which he referred, in respect of the


management and farming of land. It seems a lot of money. One wonders whether it is being spent upon educating the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans) into understanding that it is not always easy to make money out of farming. If so, possibly it has been well spent. That is one way of looking at the matter, and perhaps it would come under the Education Vote more suitably.
I want to ask my hon. Friend the Minister a question on the same item and particularly about the land managed by the Land Settlement Association. This is an item which I find very difficult to understand. I understood that there were to be substantial economies in the running of this scheme, but this item scarcely seems to bear it out. Some time ago a committee was formed—I think it was called the Brown Committee—which went into the cost of running the Land Settlement Association. I understood it was to recommend substantial economies which were to come before us, but this Vote obviously shows that it did not have the desired effect.
I do not think that sufficient people realise what is involved in this respect. The organisation was set up to bring industrial workers on to the land and to educate them in the use of smallholdings. As such, it may have served a useful purpose when there was a lot of industrial unemployment. For some years, however, it has been involved solely in putting men into smallholdings of a special type and looking after them to an extent greater than their need. That is because the men who are being brought into the Land Settlement Association now are men with a knowledge of agriculture and the set-up is more elaborate than is necessary.
I should have liked to see this taken out of its watertight compartment and put in with the county council smallholding arrangements so that it would be far less costly in management. It seems to be top heavy. It should be remembered that in the finances of the Land Settlement Association no arrangement was made to take into account the interest on the capital involved over the period during which the Association has been in existence. It is about £2 million, and no interest has been shown. That represents a real expense to the taxpayer and it could be modified, so I ask my hon. Friend to pay some attention to this point.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) about the large figure for foot-and-mouth disease, Again, however, I would not dream of suggesting that we should stop our policy of slaughter. It is essential to keep it on. It is one good service which our Ministry has rendered, and it would be a policy of defeatism to go back on it. Although the figure is high, I do not think it is large by reason of what it has achieved.

8.42 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): I will deal first with the two points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) with regard to additional expenditure on the eradication of diseases of animals. He asked first whether more could be done in the way of research into the problem of foot-and-mouth disease. The answer is that we have an admirable research station at Pirbright which has been working for many years and is at present being enlarged considerably. It has done valuable work in the past and I do not doubt that it will continue to do valuable work in the future.
Secondly my hon. Friend expressed the belief that foot-and-mouth disease comes primarily from the Continent. I agree that the recent outbreak probably came from the Continent and was probably carried on the feet of starlings in process of migration. It would be a mistake, however, to think that it comes only from the Continent. In the past it has undoubtedly come from South America, in beef from the Argentine, and from other parts of the world, and there is always a danger in any imported meat.
I agree with my hon. Friend that there is a special danger in the infection coming from the Continent, where the disease is certainly endemic. I can assure him that our Chief Veterinary Officer, Sir Thomas Dalling, has been in the closest co-operation with the leading veterinary officers in the European countries through the machinery of the Food and Agriculture Organisation. He has had a number of meetings with them, has investigated a number of outbreaks on the spot and, apart from our own interests, has undoubtedly made a substantial contribution to the various European countries concerned in helping to get the


disease under control. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance he seeks, that we are doing not only our share in this matter to protect ourselves, but also are helping other European countries to protect themselves.
I do not have to answer any questions about the soundness of the slaughter policy. I was glad to hear all my hon. Friends agree that it is undoubtedly the soundest policy for us to follow. It is right and proper for me to call attention to the average cost that the slaughter policy involves to the public purse in an ordinary year, because the recent outbreak has been the worst, not in living memory, but certainly in the last 15 years. We have had nothing comparable since 1937.
For instance, in 1948 there were only 15 outbreaks. There was the same number in 1949, and in 1950 only 20. The cost between April and September, 1951, was some £60,000. The average cost of pursuing the slaughter policy has run us into an expenditure, probably, of only about £50,000 to £100,000 a year. There is no doubt whatever that it has paid the country handsomely. We are lucky that we are an island and that the disease stays outside.
On the question of salaries, my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) questioned the additional sum required of £125,000. That is needed because of the increase in salary scales for the officers involved. If salary scales in other services are rising, it is not only fair to the officers concerned, but it is common sense, that the salaries in this Service must be kept in step. Otherwise, not only would there be unfairness to the men and women concerned, but the service would be depleted of the best officers.
I can give my hon. Friend an assurance regarding the junior officers, to whom he alluded, particularly in that there is a ceiling on the staff in the advisory service. Although it is quite significantly below the full establishment, nevertheless to meet the stringency of the present time, the ceiling has been kept at the existing level and there is no further recruitment to raise the ceiling which was established at the end of last year.
My hon. Friend referred to the management of land and to Items J.3 and J.7.

J.3 relates also to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) regarding the Land Settlement Associations. There is an additional sum of £150,000 in the Vote, and my hon. Friend will notice that Item Z, "Appropriations in Aid," contains the sum of £300,000. This includes £150,000 which exactly balances the additional amount which is expended in the trading services of the Land Settlement Associations. Owing to the higher cost of feedingstuffs, fertilisers and so on, as well as certain other additions, the trading services have to that extent been more expensive, but the amount involved is fully recouped in the additional charge to the tenants concerned.
I am not sure whether I should be in order to deal with the rather wider point of whether the Land Settlement Associations should be transferred to the county councils. I think my safest course is to refer my hon. Friend to the answer he received last November from my right hon. and gallant Friend, which I think fully answered the point he made.

Mr. James McInnes: But it did not satisfy him.

Mr. Nugent: If it did not, it should have done, because in the opinion of my right hon. and gallant Friend, and in my opinion, it is desirable that the Land Settlement Associations should continue.
To deal with the point about the activities of the Land Commission, the reason why this additional Vote is necessary is because the equipment of the lands in hand by the Land Commission has proceeded rather more rapidly than had been expected. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster knows, the Land Commission take over land which has been farmed by agricultural committees under requisition and are then charged with the responsibility of equipping that land with buildings and then, wherever possible, letting it as complete farming units equipped with buildings to ordinary farming tenants. It is because that work of equipment has proceeded rather more rapidly than had been expected that this Vote is necessary.

Mr. Baldwin: In dealing with J. 3 and and J. 7, would my hon. Friend say whether receipts from this land are shown? Is there any balance sheet or any profit-and-loss trading account so that


we can see whether the Ministry are farming at a loss or at a profit? If they are farming at this enormous loss, then it is about time they let all the land they have to somebody else to farm.

Mr. Nugent: The Estimate before the Committee is a combination of capital account and revenue account, and the details of the Land Commission's operations will be found by my hon. Friend in their annual report if he cares to ask for a copy. This account is largely a capital account for the equipping of land which otherwise would largely be bare land without adequate buildings, and to make it into individual holdings, to equip it so that it can be let to private tenants.
That is the policy of the Land Commission—to let off, as far as they can, the land in their possession to private tenants and not to keep the land in hand to farm themselves. These figures cannot be taken in any way to reflect a farming loss. As the Vote shows by the balance of the recovery under Item Z there is an appropriation in aid which offsets this additional expenditure to some extent.
Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster raised a point on the destruction of insects and pests in connection with Item P. 1. That, of course, is a saving and it is doing exactly what my hon. Friend asks—that the activity of that service should be reduced. The reason why that saving is made is because the work of the Department of pest eradication has been reduced below what was estimated.
The same thing occurs in respect of the agricultural training scheme, about which my hon. Friend was so critical. The item of £140,000, under P. 3, is also a saving, and I have no comment to make on it beyond the fact that it is certainly not an extravagance in this context. With those comments, I ask the Committee to approve the Estimate.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,620,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the

31st day of March, 1952, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, and of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, including grants, grants in aid and expenses in respect of agricultural education and research; services in connection with live stock; land settlement; land drainage; purchase, adaptation, development and management of land; agricultural credits and marketing; the prevention of food infestation; agricultural training and settlement schemes; fishery organisation, research and development; and sundry other services.

VOTE 9. MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (FOOD PRODUCTION SERVICES)

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for certain food production services of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries.

VOTE 11. SURVEYS OF GREAT BRITAIN, &C.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £17,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for the survey of Great Britain and other mapping services.

VOTE 14. MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £202,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Transport, including the expenses of the Transport Tribunal, the Road and Rail Appeal Tribunal, and the Transport Arbitration Tribunal, and sundry other services.

VOTE 22. FISHERIES, SCOTLAND

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £278,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for salaries and expenses in connection with the administration of Scottish fishery services, including assistance to the near and middle distance and inshore fishing industry and to fishermen's co-operative societies, etc., and a grant in aid of piers or quays.

FISHING INDUSTRY, SCOTLAND

8.56 p.m.

Mr. James H. Hoy: I have no doubt that for the second time tonight the Whips' Department has not been working very well—I am talking about the Government Whip and not the Opposition Whip. I have no doubt that a Minister will appear from the Scottish Office, but perhaps the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries will make a note of what I say. I am not blaming the Minister, as he has been present in the Committee for a long period.
I wish to raise one or two specific points on this Vote, because the sum involved is £278,500 which is a considerable sum of money going to the Fisheries Department of the Scottish Office. I want the Minister to say something about research work which is going on regarding fishing in the Firth of Forth. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who is responsible for this Department, had many questions to ask about this problem when he was on this side of the Committee. I wish to know what results have been achieved by the research department, because I notice at Item D.I. of the Supplementary Estimates that there is provision for £60,000 for a new research vessel—

Captain Duncan: On a point of order. Again I raise the same point as I raised with your predecessor, Sir Charles. The hon. Member is referring to savings. Item D.I. refers to savings. Are we in order in discussing all the savings or are we only in order in discussing Items B and H?

Mr. Woodburn: Further to that point of order. We are discussing a considerable sum of money for assistance for the white fish industry. There are no details of whether the assistance includes some money for research. I submit that since it is inclusive of assistance to the white fish industry, the discussion is in order.

The Chairman: Yes, the addition of £400,000 for the white fish industry is in order, but savings are out of order.

Mr. Hoy: I would not like to go any further than that, but there is an additional sum of £400,000 in connection with the white fish industry. I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for Angus, South (Captain Duncan) is no better

informed on this subject than on the last. He might have had a little more patience, because this is an important problem so far as Scotland is concerned, and we are dealing with a very important industry which does not call for any frivolity on his part.
I would like to know from the Under-Secretary what results he has to report on research work regarding the Firth of Forth, because I know he is interested in the matter. I also wish to know if the work is going on at present and if it is likely to continue. It is extremely important, for this reason. A decision has been given by The Hague International Court which considerably limits the fishing grounds which our people would have to exploit, and so it is—

Captain Duncan: On a point of order. I would like to follow the hon. Gentleman, if it is in order, but, again, he is referring to Item D. 1, dealing with research, which refers to savings. The hon. Gentleman has referred to a sum of £60,000 which is referred to in Item D. 1. Is it in order, therefore, to discuss Items B and H?

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman has referred to Items B and H, and I understand that he is making the case that research was necessary.

Mr. Hoy: The Committee has tried already this evening to make the hon. and gallant Member for Angus, South, understand what is being discussed, and we have been very unsuccessful on previous occasions. It now appears that the hon. and gallant Gentleman's intelligence has not improved between then and now.
What we are asking for is an explanation of the sum of £400,000, and what I want to know is what is included in that figure. I am certain that I am quite in order in asking that question, and now, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will listen, I will proceed to give the reasons for asking that question.
May I say to the Under-Secretary, once more, that the reason for all this is that we have had a decision from The Hague Court which can affect considerably the fishing resources of this country, and I understand that there is some further information about a further curtailment of fishing grounds which affects Iceland. I do not know if the rumour is correct or not, but perhaps the Under-Secretary


will be able to give Scottish Members some information on that point when he replies. This makes it all the more important that we should see how this £400,000 is being spent, and if any part of it is being used for research work for the benefit of the Scottish fishing industry.
The Under-Secretary knows as well as I do that Scotland has been interested in this matter for a considerable time. In fact, we played an active part in the working of the North Sea Over-Fishing Convention, which dealt with this matter. I myself raised the matter at Strasbourg, and we had a Motion supporting the Convention and asking the countries concerned to ratify it to preserve the fishing grounds of the North Sea.
I do not know what has happened so far, but it would be of interest to us to know whether Belgium and Iceland have agreed to ratify the Convention. I raised this matter myself, and I am sure that the hon. and gallant Member for Angus, South, will not mind me saying that I raised the matter directly with members of the Belgium Parliament last September. I would like to know what action has been taken by those concerned.
I do not want to go very much further, or to get out of order, but I hope that the Under-Secretary, when he comes to reply, will give us some information on this particular point. What part of this sum is to be devoted to research work, and what results have been obtained from it, so far as the Firth of Forth and other areas are concerned? Will he say if, indeed, it is true that there is to be a further curtailment of fishing grounds of importance to Scotland in regard to some law which has been promulgated by Iceland?
Furthermore, will he give us any information in regard to what has happened over the North Sea Over-Fishing Convention. That is research work of a very important character, and it is extremely important to fishing people and to those who earn their living in Scotland from the sea.

9.4 p.m.

Captain Duncan: I did not intend to intervene in this debate until the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) brought me to my feet. He has raised matters which I thought could not be raised in this debate, but, as they have been raised, I should like to ask similar questions to those that have been asked already.
The Norwegian decision has caused a great deal of discussion among fishermen in the north of Scotland, and our people are asking why, if the Norwegians can curtail the fishing round their indented coastline, the Scottish people should not also do it. There are, of course, difficult questions of possible counter-action by other countries. One of the countries in which counter-action might be taken is Iceland. Therefore, it is a question of whether the Scottish fishermen would gain by copying the Norwegian decision and making it from point to point along the coast instead of within the three-mile limit according to the indentation of the coast line.

Mr. Manuel: On a point of order. The hon. and gallant Gentleman, Sir Charles, is now going beyond the point to which he himself objected, and is dealing with Icelandic fishing methods as against Norwegian methods.

The Chairman: I think the hon. and gallant Member is relating his argument to what might be done in Iceland if we adopted the Norwegian method, and to the effect that such a decision would have on the white fish industry in Scotland.

Mr. M. MacMillan: Further to that point of order. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is discussing something which is explained on page 59 under assistance given to white fishermen. The £400,000 is explained away as a white fish subsidy which will operate until March, 1952. I did not see why he should allow himself this legal poaching when he objected to it from this side of the Committee.

The Chairman: I did not realise that was the case. It was my mistake. The hon. and gallant Member is, I am afraid, out of order.

Captain Duncan: I thought so, too, Sir Charles, but I thought it only fair that I should make some attempt to answer the point from this side of the Committee. I will say no more except that this extra £400,000 which we are now voting has been of very great assistance to the inshore fishermen. Without it they would have been in a very difficult situation. I do not want to go into any great detail, but I want to give one instance, the enormous increase in the cost of gear, about which the late Government did nothing at all. It has put up the cost of fishing enormously.
In addition, the coastal waters of our islands are gradually becoming denuded of fish, and fishermen are having to go further out to sea, which means bigger boats and stronger tackle and gear. Had it not been for this subsidy which expires on 31st March, 1952, but which, in fact, will continue after that date, I do not know what would have happened to the inshore fishermen. The fishermen of Scotland are very grateful to the Government for the extra £400,000 which the Committee is authorising tonight.

9.9 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn: Can the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland give us any information about the state of the vessels in the white fish industry? Does this subsidy include any direct or indirect assistance for reconstituting the white fish industry in respects in which it has been so badly deteriorating? It has been well known for some time that a great many vessels are becoming obsolete.
The point that strikes me is that in order to assist the white fish industry these subsidies need to be greater and greater if the industry is to be placed permanently on its feet. Unless the industry is brought up to date, both as regards its handling of the fish and its marketing of the fish, increasingly larger subsidies will be required to keep the industry prosperous.
I should be glad if, when he replies, the Minister would tell us what progress has been made in bringing this industry up to an efficient standard and what he hopes to be able to do in the future to make the white fish industry self-supporting by having suitable boats for dealing with the trade.
It is not only important from the point of view of industry itself. As everybody knows, this industry is one of the reserve assets of the Fleet for our defence in wartime. If the industry continues to allow its boats to deteriorate and become obsolescent, there are great national dangers involved in respect of the industry not being able to play its full part in the production of food and not being able to make its contribution to defence.

9.11 p.m.

Mr. M. MacMillan: I wonder, Sir Charles, whether it is in order to discuss that part of the Estimate which is repre-

sented by grants in aid for the repair and construction of quays and piers.

The Chairman: The matter the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) wishes to raise would be out of order.

Mr. MacMillan: But it does enter into the sum total.

The Chairman: It comes within the whole Estimate but we are here only dealing with a narrow point, and I think the hon. Member would be out of order.

Mr. MacMillan: I respectfully accept your Ruling, Sir Charles, but may I ask whether it could be discussed under the Development Fund?

The Chairman: No.

Mr. W. G. Bennett: On a point of order, Sir Charles. We should like to listen to this debate if we could only hear what is going on. As it is, we have little idea of what the hon. Member for the Western Isles is saying. Does he want to increase the Vote?

The Chairman: No. The hon. Member was asking whether quays and piers mentioned in the original Estimate could be discussed now, and I was pointing out that Items D and H are the only ones that can be discussed on this Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Bennett: This expenditure has only a fortnight to run and surely it is impossible at this time to increase expenditure, as the money has been spent already.

Mr. MacMillan: I was not trying to increase the Vote but to increase the scope of the discussion. I am sorry that the hon. Member did not hear what I said, though I do not think he missed much. Could we have some information from the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, in connection with Item H, about the areas in which the white fish subsidy is being applied? For example, could we know how much was applied to or spent in the Western Isles and Shetland? This is particularly important in these outlying places owing to the difficulties of marketing and so on.
Could we have some details, or would it embarrass the Joint Under-Secretary to raise too many points of narrow local


difficulties at this juncture? We have limited ourselves in this debate by getting each other ruled out of order, so that there is very little left that one can ask the Joint Under-Secretary. I am sorry that we have not been able to address ourselves to the all-important question of the transportation of white fish from these remote areas, and to the long-overdue grant-in-aid. I am sorry that there is not much sign of great success in obtaining comfort from the Government. I am sorry that apparently we cannot have some assurance from the Joint Under-Secretary, who was such an enthusiast in opposition for generous and adequate grants to help the fishermen in his own constituency and in mine.

9.15 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Henderson Stewart): I should like to be able to offer an affirmative and hopeful answer to the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) on the issue of the rising cost of gear. As he has said, I myself have been much concerned about that matter in recent years. I think I may say to the hon. Member—and I think it will gladden his heart—that I am informed that during the last year, and particularly during the last six months, the rising curve of costs has flattened substantially, and I can only hope that that may continue. I cannot give any guarantee, but I am sure we shall all be very glad if that is so.
The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) asked me about the disappearance of herring in the Firth of Forth. He inquired what was being done to discover the reason for the disappearance and whether there was any chance of the herring coming back. The Firth of Forth is for me, as it is for the hon. Member, a matter of great personal concern, and I have been much interested in this myself. In 1949—I ought not to say at my request, but certainly I helped to bring it about—there was started in the Firth of Forth an intensive research into the problem of the disappearing herring.
Since then there has been a persistent and unceasing research by the fishery cruiser "Cleupea" assisted by the Herring Industry Board boat, "The Silver Searcher." I am sorry to have to report to the Committee, as I am sorry to have to tell my constituents and those of the hon. Member, that the results have been very disappointing.
We cannot discover why the herring have left. There is some indication that broods are beginning to build themselves up again, but it is no more than an indication, and the scientists would not like to place any very strong emphasis upon this. However, there are some hopeful signs, and I can only say that we are doing our best to follow up the research.
The next thing the hon. Member for Leith and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Angus, South (Captain Duncan) asked me about was the effect of The Hague law case and the decision of the International Court. As the Committee know, the decision of The Hague Court, raises matters of very wide and serious concern. They affect not only the fishing industry but, as hon. Members will appreciate, they are at once the concern of the Admiralty, the Ministry of Transport and the Foreign Office.
That being so, it is not a problem that we can dismiss airily. I can assure the Committee that the Government, in all the relevant Departments, are giving this matter the most anxious and urgent attention, and although I cannot promise any early decision or action because of the complexity of the problem, I would like the Committee to believe that we are greatly concerned about this and will do everything we can.
The hon. Member for Leith asked me about Iceland. I understand that the Icelandic Government have announced today the new fishery limits which they propose to apply, as from 15th May next, to the coast of Iceland not already covered by the 1950 regulations which related to the north coast, but we have not yet received details of the new line. It may be that later on there will be more information to give to the Committee.
The next question raised by both the hon. Member for Leith and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Angus, South, related to over-fishing. I recognise at once, as I am sure the whole Committee does, the very valuable work which the hon. Member for Leith did at Strasbourg to facilitate some international settlement of this very anxious problem of over-fishing in the North Sea. Since the hon. Member was there, Belgium and Iceland have agreed to the Convention.

Mr. M. MacMillan: Ratified?

Mr. Stewart: Ratified the Convention. I understand that Spain is ready to ratify at any time. The trouble is that France has made suggestions that it might take her a fairly long time before she can implement the provisions regarding larger meshes. If we were to agree to that lengthy period the value of the Convention would be somewhat weakened and we are endeavouring to get some better understanding with France for some more limited period.
If that is achieved we are hopeful that the Convention will be ratified in all the countries concerned. There will probably have to be a protocol afterwards for slight additions but in that way we hope to be able to get on with this: I assure the Committee that we regard this as a matter of real importance and urgency and we are doing everything we can.

Captain Duncan: Is Germany now in a position to ratify a Convention like that, or do we have to wait for a peace treaty before we can get her in?

Mr. Stewart: I think that question should be addressed to the Foreign Office. I cannot answer that. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) asked me about boats, and he referred in particular to the case of Aberdeen. I suppose he was thinking about the McColl Report. That Report showed that unless there was a substantial improvement in the quality, the capacity and the efficiency of the fleet it was not at all likely that Aberdeen could face the future with any happiness. The right hon. Gentleman therefore asked a question which we are all asking: How can we, and how quickly can we, improve the quality of the fishing fleet?
I should be very pleased to deal with that question and answer the right hon. Gentleman, but it does not come under this Estimate at all. Therefore, I confine myself to saying that on another occasion, whenever the Opposition like to raise it, I shall be most anxious and eager to answer. I can say that we are now giving some consideration to the possibility of a scheme intended to assist fishermen, crews and companies to improve their vessels and, perhaps, to build new ones. We are not yet ready to announce a scheme, but it will be announced as quickly as possible.
Turning to the Estimate, the main items to which attention has been drawn are Items B and H. Item B refers to the cost of administering the white fish subsidy. It is not the cost of the subsidy, but the cost of administering the subsidy. The figure of £4,000 represents the cost of administering the subsidy from 1st August, 1951, to 31st March, 1952. That is all it is and I think that is clear. Item H—£400,000—refers entirely, as the hon. Member for Western Isles pointed out, to the subsidy which is called the white fish subsidy.
I cannot tell the hon. Member what part of that subsidy was expended in his part of Scotland or, indeed, in any part of Scotland, although I can, if he wishes, give figures for the whole of Scotland. The amount paid in Scotland in the nine months April to December, 1951, was £486,000. For the 12 months ended December, 1951, the amount was £629,000. If the hon. Member would like me to give the proportion which was spent in his part of Scotland, I will certainly try to do so.

Mr. M. MacMillan: I do not think that it was anything at all.

Mr. Stewart: That subsidy, as the Committee knows—and I think I have just time to explain it—was in two parts. One part referred to inshore fishing vessels, those not exceeding 70 ft. in length, and the subsidy in that case, as the Committee will remember, consists of the flat rate of 10d. per stone of fish landed and 8d. in the case of ungutted fish. The other part of the subsidy was intended for near and middle water vessels. It is a complicated subsidy taking account of the days at sea, total gross earnings, and so on, and I do not think that the Committee will want me to embark upon all that detail tonight.
The purpose of the subsidy, of course, was to ensure a better supply of fresh fish at a reasonable price. It was a subsidy introduced with the consent of the whole House some little time ago, and was supported in its various extensions by both sides of the House. We have announced that we proposed to extend it to the middle of this year, again, I think, with the consent of the Opposition, although we have not yet been able to announce the details of the scheme which we shall apply. I think that covers most of the points raised by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee.

Mr. Hoy: I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would keep the House informed regarding the development which he has just announced concerning Iceland. Perhaps the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, who happens to be in Committee at this time, will also take due note of the steps taken by Iceland in this extremely important matter, which should receive the immediate attention not only of the Scottish Office but of the Foreign Office and other Departments.

Mr. Stewart: I can tell the hon. Member not only on behalf of the Scottish Office, but on behalf of the Foreign Office, that action is being taken.

Mr. MacMillan: As it is not yet 9.30 p.m., Sir Charles, would it be in order to discuss the herring industry, the restriction of fishing under the International Fishing Convention and other matters?

The Chairman: I am afraid that the time makes no difference to the Rules of Order.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £278,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for salaries and expenses in connection with the administration of Scottish fishery services, including assistance to the near and middle distance and inshore fishing industry and to fishermen's co-operative societies, etc., and a grant in aid of piers or quays.

CLASS II

VOTE 1. FOREIGN SERVICE

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £104,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, including Her Majesty's Missions and Consulates abroad and the salary of a Minister of State.

VOTE 2. FOREIGN OFFICE GRANTS AND SERVICES

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,784,980, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for sundry expenses connected with Her Majesty's Foreign Service; special grants, including grants in aid; and various other services.

VOTE 7. COMMONWEALTH SERVICES

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £715,350, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for sundry Commonwealth services, including certain grants in aid; the salaries and expenses of Pensions Appeal Tribunals in the Republic of Ireland; a grant in aid to the Republic of Ireland in respect of compensation to transferred officers; and certain expenditure in connection with former Burma services.

It being Half-past Nine o'Clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16 (Business of Supply), to put severally the Questions:
That the total amounts of all outstanding Estimates supplementary to those of the current financial year as have been presented seven clear days be granted for the Services defined in those Supplementary Estimates.

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1951–52

That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £24,866,980, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for expenditure in respect of the following Supplementary Estimates, viz.:—

Civil Estimates

Class I




£


2.
House of Commons
10


9.
Exchequer and Audit Department
22,120


11.
Government Chemist
1,500


17.
Public Record Office
1,400


26.
Miscellaneous Expenses
10


26B.
Funeral of His late Majesty
58,000

Class II


8.
Overseas Settlement
405,450


9.
Colonial Office
15,000


10.
Colonial and Middle Eastern Services
10

Class III


3.
Police, England and Wales
973,500

8.
County Courts
10,050


11.
Law Charges
10


14.
Police, Scotland
140,550

20.
Department of the Registers of Scotland
10


21.
Supreme Court of Judicature, &amp;c., Northern Ireland
10

Class IV


2.
British Museum
101,000


3.
British Museum (Natural History)
4,300


6.
National Gallery
750

Class VII




£


1.
Ministry of Works
813,000


4.
 Public Buildings Overseas
90,000


6.
 Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens
62,300


8.
 Rates on Government Property
326,000


9.
 Stationery and Printing
1,220,000

Revenue Departments


1.
 Customs and Excise
680,000


2.
 Inland Revenue
1,250,000


3.
 Post Office
18,692,000




£24,866,980

Question put, and agreed to.

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1951–52

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Defence; expenses in connection with International Defence Organisations and a contribution towards certain expenses incurred in the United Kingdom by the Government of the United States of America.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolutions to be reported Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

WAYS AND MEANS

Considered in Committee.

[Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on 31st day of March, 1952, the sum of £132,901,280 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

Resolved,
That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on 31st day of March, 1953, the sum of £1,602,679,200 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.—[Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.]

Resolutions to be reported Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

RATING AND VALUATION (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Bill referred to the Scottish Standing Committee.—[Mr. Stuart.]

HYDRO-ELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1.—(INCREASE OF LIMIT OF BORROWING POWERS OF NORTH OF SCOTLAND HYDRO-ELECTRIC BOARD.)

9.34 p.m.

Sir David Robertson: I beg to move, in page 1, line 13, to leave out "two hundred," and to insert "one hundred and fifty."
When the Joint Under-Secretary of State was making his second speech on the Committee Stage of the Bill he made considerable play of the fact that the board is not a matter which concerns the taxpayer. He rebuked my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) and said that this was a board financed by Scottish investors.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Henderson Stewart): I did not say anything of the kind. I should never dream of saying that the board did not concern the Scottish taxpayers. What I said was that the board had not yet, on account of its operations, had to call upon the Treasury for the implementation of its guarantee, and, therefore, its operations had not yet cost the taxpayers a halfpenny.

Sir D. Robertson: It looks as if I must refresh my hon. Friend's memory. What he said was this:
They get permission to issue stock. The stock for the most part, I am informed, is invested by Scotsmen.
Not very good English, but we all know what is meant. Scotsmen are the people who are supplying the money.
It may be that an odd wise, far-seeing Englishman—perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster—has invested a little money; nothing could be wiser, more shrewd or far-seeing.—[OFFICIAL REPORT. Scottish Standing Committee, 26th Febuary, 1952, c. 63.]
There is a good deal more of it, but I will not take up the time of the House by going into further details.
The fact is that the stock issues, four in number, total £42 million, carrying rates of interest from 2½ to 3½ per cent. and redeemable at different dates from 1989 to 1992. Of those stocks £37 million were


issued to the National Debt Commissioners. That is a Government office. Those are Exchequer funds, which we in this House are expected to control.
That is £37 million of the £42 million, and of the remaining £5 million a public issue was made at 2½ per cent. in July, 1947. Of that amount £3½ million was taken over by the Scottish banks, and the remaining £1½ million was absorbed by the National Debt Commissioners. It would, therefore, appear that over 90 per cent. of the capital stock of this nationalised monopoly is being provided by the Exchequer. It is not financed from Scottish sources as stated by my hon. Friend. I am making that point, because it had a great bearing on the speech which he made, the whole tenor of which was that this was a self-contained profit-making enterprise, financed by Scottish capital and run by Scotsmen in Scotland. It is not true so far as the capital is concerned.
The money put up by the stocks is subject to the control of this House. The public control of finance is a primary duty of the House of Commons. I sometimes think that since that Sunday in 1939, when so many Bills and Regulations were passed on the nod, we have got out of the way of caring for the public purse. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am not so sure about that, but I will have something to say about it a little later on.
The Joint Under-Secretary emphasised that the charges incurred by this nationalised board had been met out of current revenue. That is not so. I do not think that the Joint Under-Secretary has read any of the reports issued by the board. If he had done so, the facts which I have given about the National Debt Commissioners would have been known to him, for they are all printed there for anyone to see.
The fact is that interest has not been charged on unremunerative capital expenditure running to a vast sum. Instead of charging it against the revenue of the board, it has been capitalised and added to the assets. This board would not be self-supporting if these charges had been met. I do not make a big point of that, but I am only showing that in two very important respects the information given to the House by the Joint Under-Secretary was not correct, nor was a very important admission which he made. He said that

borrowing was guaranteed by the Treasury, but he did not say that the capital stock, as to capital and interest, was also guaranteed by the Treasury. If ever there was a board which is the concern of this House it is this board.
9.45 p.m.
Fortuitously, because of this little Bill, which came up some weeks ago, and which I believe it was hoped would go through on the nod, or with a pious speech from the Government Bench and an equally pious one from the opposite bench—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—some of us, who represent Highland constituencies and who are concerned about the operation of this board, aided by our Sassenach friend the hon. Member for Kidderminster, decided that we should need to know a little more about it.
I would remind the House that the Bill has provided the first occasion for nine years, since the creation of this board, for the board to be debated by Members of the House of Commons. The sum of £100 million of public money for which we are responsible had already been subscribed. A Bill was brought forward for another £100 million. I am old enough to regard £100 million of public money as a vast sum. Because of this Bill, the House—I say this with becoming modesty—is indebted to the hon. Member for Kidderminster and to myself for providing a vehicle for discussion. The House has been very remiss. The principal blame attaches to the late Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—yes, for allowing this concern to continue without bringing its accounts before the House of Commons. Her Majesty's Opposition share some of the blame.
I admit that we Scottish Unionist Members have only rights to two days on the Floor of the House and to six days in Scottish Grand Committee. Other debates have prior place, and I do not quarrel with that. It is the fact that this is the first occasion, since this little Bill came before the House, that we have had an opportunity of ventilating our views on it and of fulfilling our Parliamentary duty as Members of the House of Commons to examine expenditure.
There are fundamental weaknesses in the board, and they are born out of lack of Parliamentary control. The first is that every one of the schemes which has been brought forward to this House for


approval has been exceeded by 200 per cent. or 300 per cent. in expenditure, without the board's coming back to the House of Commons and telling us about it. A £5 million scheme involves a cost of £10 million before it is finished.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member seems to be making a Second Reading speech. His Amendment is merely to substitute £150 million for £200 million. I hope he will manage to confine his remarks to the substance of his Amendment.

Sir D. Robertson: I would respectfully draw your attention, Sir, to the fact that what I am saying is cogent. I want the £50 million reduction so that this board will be compelled to come back to the House of Commons in half of the time that they would have to if they got £100 million, and I am giving as my reason that they have been incurring tremendous expenses, because a cost approved by Parliament has been grossly exceeded. I hope that I am making my case.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member will have to show that the substitution of "one hundred and fifty" for "two hundred" will advance the argument that he is putting before me. In other words, he cannot raise the question of Parliamentary control because apparently he agrees to £150 million and it is the difference of £50 million to which he must confine himself.

Sir D. Robertson: May I put it this way, Sir? I do not think the Government would dispute the fact that if the House gives the board £100 million it will be 10 or maybe more years before they come back to the House to give an account of their stewardship. In view of the huge excess of spending authorised by this House, am I not in order in supporting my plea for the figure to be £50 million, which would bring the board back to the House in half the time?

Mr. Speaker: I do not want to be too hard on the hon. Member. It is relevant to the argument to say that the board will have to return to Parliament earlier, but the hon. Member must concentrate upon the difference between £150 million and £200 million.

Sir D. Robertson: Very well, Sir, I am much obliged to you and I will leave that

point. I hope, however, that it has sunk in on both sides of the House. [Laughter.] It is not a laughing matter. It concerns the control of public funds, and it is a serious thing, in my view, when expenditure is carried to such an extent. I believe that one of the major causes of inflation in Scotland is the cost-plus that we were driven into during the dangerous days of the war. A contractor can make a contract for £3,900,000 and can snap his fingers because he knows very well that he can get more if costs of materials and wages rise. However, I feel that the House is bound to support the plea for closer Parliamentary control, particularly as for nine years there has been no control whatsoever.
There is another aspect of control, namely, whether it is desirable that the constitution of the board should remain as it is at present. This was the first of the nationalised boards set up at the critical stage of the middle of the war when we had not the experience we now have in 1952. This is a part-time board, composed of men engaged in other more or less full time occupations, who can spare time to come to the meetings occasionally, to sit round the table and he told what has happened. All the subsequent boards such as B.E.A. and the area boards had at least some full-time members—

Mr. Speaker: I do not see how the hon. Member can raise the constitution of the board on the difference between £150 million and £200 million as the maximum sum the board may borrow. It seems to be quite beyond the scope of his Amendment.

Sir D. Robertson: Knowing your generosity, Mr. Speaker, to people who are trying to do their best, I am reluctant even to question the point you have made, but I should have thought that the qualification of men to spend £100 million of public money would have been conditioned largely by the time they were able to spend on the job. I know of no business of this size, with £200 million capital where the control is vested in people none of whom are qualified by experience of the industry and are simply part-timers. I think it is bad for the board. If I were a member of the board—

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. Member is quite out of order. His Amendment assumes that the board can borrow £150 million. I do not see how his argument can be hinged on to the difference between £150 million and £200 million.

Sir D. Robertson: I have failed—

Mr. John Rankin: I should like to put this point to the hon. Member. He has doubted the ability of the board to spend properly £200 million. How then can he justify his own Amendment?

Mr. Speaker: This is also out of order. Sir David Robertson.

Sir D. Robertson: I know that you will not allow me to answer the hon. Member's question, Mr. Speaker.
One of my main pre-occupations about this matter concerns the taking of Highland resources and using them, not for the benefit of the people they should serve and for the purpose for which this expenditure of money was intended but for the benefit of consumers outwith the area. I should have no complaint to make but for the fact that the price at which the consumer outside the area purchases his electric power is very much less than that which my constituents pay—only a third or a quarter, in fact, of what my constituents pay for domestic supplies.
The truth is that the money that was provided by the 1943 Act, and which will be provided by the Bill, has been spent for serving the cream of the applicants. People living in populous urban or suburban areas are connected. The old problem which you, Mr. Speaker, remember so well, is rife again.

Mr. Speaker: Again, I must point out that it seems to me that the situation would be unchanged whether the board was allowed to have outstanding at any one time £150 or £200 million. I do not see that the hon. Member's argument is relevant to his Amendment.

Sir D. Robertson: One of the points that might be submitted is that if the board was not supplying B.E.A. for approximately ½d. per unit and my constituents for 5d. a unit, it would have much more in earnings in the kitty and would not need to come to the House for £100 million; £50 million would be adequate. That is a perfectly legitimate point.
This is a matter of very great anxiety. The board was created, and a primary duty was imposed upon it of supplying the ordinary people in the Highland area. While I should be the first to agree that the board is doing well, my criticism is meant to strengthen and improve the board and the services it is providing. But the area outwith the Highland area—and that is the area with which the Act is concerned—is served at a very low price per unit, while crofters, farmers and other essential people in the rural areas are unconnected nine years after the passing of the Act, the object of which was to arrest depopulation, which is the greatest affliction of the Highland counties.
In the recent census, of the two counties which I have the honour to represent, one is first in the depopulation list and the other is second. The amenities—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member cannot raise the question of the depopulation of the Highlands on a matter of the difference between £150 and £200 million. It is not in order.

Sir D. Robertson: I do not know whether you realise it, Mr. Speaker, but you are making things very difficult for me. Of course, you are bound by the Rules of Order, and I should be the last to object to their enforcement, although I deplore them. It seems that I need to leave it to my hon. Friends to carry on the debate.
Unless the board stops taking the cream of the trade and gets down to dealing with the hard core, and uses some of the money which is being provided, whether it is £50 or £100 million, in supplying a fixed percentage of the rural areas, as was provided in the Act—it is a primary duty for the board to take current to the rural areas; that was almost the sole justification for the Act—and unless the House insists on this being done, we shall be failing in our duty. I feel confident, however, that that will not be the case.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: I beg to second the Amendment.
The Amendment, so ably and eloquently moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson), involves the curtailment of capital investment and, as I intend to devote practically the whole of my remarks upon it to the issue of capital


investment, I trust that I shall not stray from the Rules of Order. On the Second Reading of the Bill I said that I would support it for this reason—and perhaps I may quote from the peroration of my speech on Second Reading:
I have said today that the excessively high cost of capital development of the hydroelectric schemes could only be justified on account of the fact that there is a direct saving in coal. It is primarily for that reason that I am supporting the Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th January, 1952; Vol. 495, c. 100.]
That is a very legitimate reason, but it does not detract in any way from the necessity for this House to scrutinise carefully the measure of capital investment granted under the Bill and the span of years in which the capital investment so granted shall be expended. It is fortunate that the Report stage of the Bill is being taken after the Budget, whereas the Second Reading and the Committee stage were taken before the Chancellor's Budget statement.
I want to quote from a speech made only the day before yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Member for Alder-shot (Mr. Lyttelton)—a speech upon this very important question of capital investment. I suggest, with great respect to hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies, that we are not considering a parochial Scottish issue. This is an issue involving "below the line" expenditure in the national investment schedule, and it is a matter which is just as important to English Members as it is to Scottish Members.

Colonel Alan Gomme-Duncan: Would my hon. Friend explain what he means by parochial Scottish matters?

Sir Herbert Williams: There are no parishes in Scotland.

Mr. Nabarro: My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), reminds me that there are no parishes in Scotland, so that this cannot be parochial. My use of the word parochial was metaphorical; perhaps we may say "local interest in Scotland." I was trying to emphasise that this is a matter of general interest throughout the United Kingdom.
It is clear that at the moment our economic affairs are in a difficult condition and that there is a paucity of

money available for capital investment. It is, therefore, the duty of Her Majesty's Government, in my view, to scrutinise very closely every pound of capital investment to ensure that there is the maximum yield to the national economy. In the case of the Hydro-Electric Bill, that maximum yield means one or both of two things: it means either a maximum saving in coal and/or a maximum yield in electric power.
On 17th March, as reported in c. 1966 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot, confirming the views that I have just expressed, said:
All we are now saying, and nobody can possibly gainsay the necessity, is that in our present economic position we cannot afford to continue at the same rate of capital investment as that at which we have been engaged during 1950 and 1951.
He went on, as reported in the succeeding column, to say:
I acknowledge that this process will certainly involve some painful readjustments."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th March, 1952; Vol. 497, c. 1966–8.]
I want, at this stage, to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to tell the House, when he replies, whether this painful process of readjustment is to be applied to the Scottish Hydro-Electric Board, or whether it is to be permitted to continue its 1951 scale of capital investment. Is the Scottish Hydro-Electric Board to be sacrosanct, or is it to fall in line with the general readjustment of capital investment forced upon us by economic circumstances?
There was a long discussion on the Committee stage on the merits—

Mr. Rankin: The hon. Member started it.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Member says that I started it—

Mr. Rankin: Fifty-three minutes!

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Member is quite wrong; it was 52 minutes. In fact, the affairs of the Scottish Standing Committee were so re-vitalised by that speech that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) referred to it as the insertion of a Voronoff-gland; and that was sufficient testimony in itself.
I do not wish to be contentious at this stage of the Bill, but rather to find the highest common factor of agreement


with Her Majesty's Government in the matter of the figures put forward by the Hydro-Electric Board. It is a fact that in the hydro-electric scheme in Scotland the present cost per kilowatt installed is £200, whereas in a thermal station, an ordinary power station, the capital cost per kilowat installed is £60. From those simple figures, and without waxing at all technical it will become evident that the capital cost of providing equipment per kilowatt of power is three times as great for a hydro-electric scheme in Scotland as it is for a thermal power station.
When we are short of money for capital investment I submit that a three times greater capital investment per kilowatt is a major consideration for this House. The second issue, which is a parallel consideration—

Sir Ian Fraser: Would my hon. Friend permit a question? Although the cost is as he says, does not the hydro-electric scheme use more cement, and more workers of various kinds, but less skill? Is not that perhaps a point?

Mr. Nabarro: If my hon. Friend will allow me to continue my argument I will, in time, pass to responding to his point.
The second point of major relevance is the fact that a hydro-electric scheme is often considered to last in perpetuity, or for all time. [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes."] An hon. Member opposite says, "Yes." That is not strictly correct. The length of time which a hydro-electric scheme is estimated to last is 75 years. That is the period on which most of the hydro-electric schemes in this country are based. A new thermal station is generally estimated to last 25 years. Therefore, a hydro-electric scheme lasts three times as long as a thermal station.
The period of amortisation of plant and equipment for a hydro-electric scheme is three times as long as for a thermal power station. But, as the capital cost of a hydro-electric scheme is three times greater than for a thermal power station, the two considerations cancel each other out in terms of the sum of money which must be amortised for every unit of electricity generated in each year.

Mr. Alex. Anderson: Is not it the case that the Hydro-Electric Board must sell their current at a price

comparable with the cheapest steam stations? Is not it a fact that they have done that for the last five years and this year, in spite of a rise in costs, are not they still making a profit and bringing electricity to areas where no private enterprise concern would go?

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Member is partly right and I will cover his point in due course. I was just clearing up the point that the greater length of life of a hydro-electric station almost exactly offsets the cost of installation, in terms of annual depreciation or amortisation of plant and equipment.
The point made by the right hon. Gentleman is that the cost of a unit of electricity is the same. Indeed, that is absolutely correct. If he will look up the broadsheet issued by the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board to hon. Members of this House he will see that in the final paragraph, it is stated that, including transmission charges, the cost of a unit of electricity is exactly the same whether generated by steam station or hydro. Therefore, the capital costs as between the two types cancel themselves out and the cost of a unit of electricity is equal in each case, we are driven to only two remaining economic issues.
One is the amount of coal that can be saved by this capital investment, which this Amendment seeks to reduce, and the other is the issue of satisfying the local needs of electricity in the North of Scotland. May I speak first on the coal saving, because it directly affects the question of capital investment? I take the figure given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn), who, on Second Reading, said that for the capital investment to date, which is £47,500,000, the saving of coal is 500,000 tons a year. Those are the figures which the right hon. Gentleman gave. I think they are on the high side, but I will take them as being correct.
In days of extreme stringency of money for capital investment, it is imperative that every pound we invest should give us the greatest possible yield, either in electric power or in coal economy. That £47,500,000 invested in any one of half a dozen different projects would give us a yield in coal economy three or four times as great.
May I give one example to prove my point? Last Friday week, the hon. Lady


the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) was pleading very eloquently on the need for installing modern appliances in the homes of Scotland in order to conserve fuel. If we had put this £47 million that has already been spent in the hydro-electric scheme into new grates in Scottish homes, it would provide, at £10 a time, 4,750,000 such grates, and each one would save half a ton of coal a year. I am glad to have the support of the hon. Member for Ayrshire, South, who represents a mining constituency, because one of his purposes is to stop men going down the pits unnecessarily. The hon. Gentleman will, therefore, support me when I say that 4,750,000 grates, at an average cost of £10 a time, would provide—

Mr. Speaker: This seems to be an argument directed not only against the Bill as a whole, but against the parent Act. We are really considering the Amendment, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will come back to it.

Mr. Nabarro: I was endeavouring to demonstrate a comparison of capital investment yields in support of my plea that the amount that we propose to invest under this Bill is too large in present circumstances. However, if I may, I will complete that argument by saying that, if we spent that £47 million in new modern appliance grates, it would yield approximately four times as much coal economy as the 500,000 tons of coal that is saved each year by the investment in hydroelectric schemes.

Sir William Darling: But how many tons of coal would be required to make the 4,750,000 grates? [Laughter.]

Mr. Nabarro: Hon. Gentlemen opposite should wait a minute; they have got it coming to them. My hon. Friend inquires how much cast iron will be required for the grates. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, coal."] All right; how much coal would be required to make the cast iron that would be put into the grates in the houses. Not half as much coal as was required to make the steel which has already been consumed in the hydroelectric scheme—not half as much.
Let me come to the final point, that of providing electricity to the local residents in the north of Scotland. On the Second

Reading of this Bill I was interrupted on many occasions because hon. Members said that I was seeking to criticise the legitimate requirements for electricity in the north of Scotland. I corrected them and said that was not the case because the existing capacity of hydro-electric schemes in Scotland is more than enough to meet the needs of the 400,000 odd persons in the seven crofter counties. This further investment which we are now discussing, and which I suggest is too great, is solely designed to provide electricity for the Scottish Lowland grid and for the north of England grid.
When the Joint-Under Secretary of State replied to me on the Committee stage he said it was going to take 20 years to spend this £100 million. Therefore, what we are being asked to do tonight is to legislate for expenditure in a nationalised industry some of which expenditure will not take place until 1972. What rubbish! We should not be legislating for 1972; we should be legislating for the next three years. I am not prepared to look any more than three years ahead in the matter of capital investment in view of the extreme stringency of funds available at this moment.
If, by this Amendment, the additional borrowing powers of the board are reduced from £100 million to £50 million, then it means, according to the reply of the Under-Secretary of State, that we shall legislate for 10 years' expenditure ahead by the Hydro-Electric Board. I submit that 10 years' cover ahead is more than adequate. It should not be necessary to try to look further than 1962, and no civil contractor and no local board in Scotland can deny that they only plan their hydro schemes up to five years ahead. I believe that on that score alone the Under-Secretary of State stands condemned.
I want to pass to another point. I have been very severely criticised in the Scottish newspapers—I enjoy criticism—for daring to suggest that Parliament, by scrutinising capital expenditure grants to the Hydro-Electricity Board, should exercise a greater degree of control over this particular nationalised industry. One Glasgow paper, the "Bulletin and Scots Pictorial," asked, in its leading article—why a Sassenach Member should single out the North of Scotland Hydro-


electricity Board for criticism and why should not Parliament have the same degree of control over all nationalised industry?
Those who are constant attenders in this Chamber will know that I have been standing up every Thursday afternoon for weeks asking the Leader of the House why all the nationalised industries that have their Reports and accounts in arrear are not being brought to the Floor of the House for regular debate, and why we have never debated the accounts of the Gas Council; why the accounts of the Electricity Authority are already two years in arrear? As was confirmed so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson), we have not since 1945 even discussed the annual Report and accounts of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board.
I hope that by reducing the amount of the additional borrowing powers to £50 million and thereby giving dispensatory discretion to this nationalised Board for only 10 years ahead instead of for 20 years, we in this House will be doing our proper job and exercising due control and jurisdiction over the expenditure of a nationalised Corporation.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Alex. Anderson: Before the hon. Member sits down, may I ask him whether he has ever been in a crofter county in the North of Scotland before he allied himself with a man who has no real knowledge of his county and has been disowned by his own local authority in this matter of hydro-electric power? I should like to hear whether the hon. Member has ever been there and knows anything about the position in that area? I resent the fact that the hon. Member should be trying to practise his obvious opposition to the Snowdonia scheme by unfairly criticising the work of the Scottish Hydro-Electric Board.

Mr. Nabarro: I am a regular visitor to the North of Scotland, but this is a national issue and not only a Scottish issue, as I said at the beginning of my speech.
Furthermore, in case the hon. Member is not sufficiently well acquainted with the facts on hydro-electric power and has not studied the annual report and accounts with the same interest and care with

which I have studied them, he should go back to the point in my speech where I said, as I said in Committee, that the existing hydro-electric capacity is much more than enough to provide for all the needs of the seven crofter counties and for any prospective industrial development and that this extra money is only required for the generation of electricity to the Lowland grid and to the North of England.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: I am very pleased to have caught your eye, Mr. Speaker, because we have had three meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee to deal with this subject and I failed to be called to speak at any of them. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) delivered three speeches during that period and I think that amply illustrates that at least he has had much more time to state his case than those of us who believe that the full amount stated in this Bill should be voted have had in replying to him.
There is a certain Siamese twins complex about the mover and seconder of this Amendment. They have certain odd characteristics in common in stating their case. I can remember before I became a Member of this House how I used to be rather intrigued by the antics of one Gander Dower who used to represent Caithness and Sutherland. But I think we have had a new low level of absurdity now for a Highland Member in connection with Highland development. I think this new low level of political burlesque should cease after tonight in connection with Scottish development at any rate. Some of us feel very keenly about what has happened since hydro-electricity in Scotland was initiated by the late Government.

Sir H. Williams: Initiated?

Mr. Manuel: We should remember the part played by Mr. Tom Johnston. We in Scotland, quite apart from a mere Londoner who has a passing knowledge through a visit to Scotland in August, recognise that this development in Scotland has completely changed living conditions in a very material way in large areas of our country.

Colonel Alan Gomme-Duncan: rose—

Mr. Manuel: I hope the hon. and gallant Member will catch Mr. Speaker's eye. I have a fair amount to say.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: It is the hon. Member's eye I want to catch.

Mr. Manuel: I repudiate completely the intention of this Amendment to reduce the sum of £200 million by the amount indicated. We know that there are still many areas without electricity, and it seemed peculiar that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, in moving the Amendment, should have indicated that there are parts of his constituency still without it, while the seconder tried to make a case against these areas getting it.

Mr. Nabarro: Would the hon. Gentleman allow me—

Mr. Manuel: No, the hon. Gentleman took up enough time during the Committee stage. There are still many areas without electricity, and I want the supply of electricity to be extended to these areas and to other areas which have some electricity supplied from private sources.
From my knowledge of the Highlands, which is very close, I am aware that, very often at considerable inconvenience, certain Highland landlords have been instrumental to a limited extent in providing electricity in their own areas. I am thinking of one scheme in particular where, I think, the Hydro-Electricity Board ought to spend some of the £200 million in getting rid of an out-dated private installation—

Sir H. Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order to discuss the whole range of who made provision before somebody else did it?

Mr. Speaker:: I was listening to the hon. Member. So far he is in order, but may I make an appeal to the House? Of course, I have no knowledge of what took place in Committee, but I have heard from hon. Members on both sides of the House that this matter was discussed on a somewhat different Amendment in Committee. I would ask hon. Members not to go over the whole range of the Bill again. A great deal of work has been done upon it both in the House and in Committee, and it is against the Rules of Order to go back over the same ground again and again. If hon. Members will confine themselves to the

Amendment, I am sure we shall get on better.

Mr. Manuel: I appreciate your advice, Mr. Speaker, but I hope you will appreciate that I tried for three mornings in the Scottish Grand Committee to catch the Chairman's eye.
With respect to these installations, I believe that the Hydro-Electricity Board could, with a great deal of added convenience to the inhabitants of certain Highland areas, do away with these small private uneconomic installations and extend its own activities to those areas. I am certain the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland knows that the service in these areas is given at an higher price than the Hydro-Electricity Board's charges. Very often the crofters and others in the area are subjected to electricity breakdowns which do not occur in Hydro-Electricity Board's areas with the same frequency.
The board is doing a good job, and, while I understand that Mr. Speaker's Ruling is that we cannot go into this matter now, I would say that this criticism of part-time members comes very ill from the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland while he himself, in association with many companies, is only a part-time member or, if he is a full-time member of them, he is very much a part-time Member of this House.

Sir H. Williams: He is here every day.

Mr. Manuel: I wish to answer the criticism of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland with respect to increased costs and his reference to the cost-plus system. I want to put the point to him that ever since the war ended industry as a whole has had to meet this position. Cost-plus has been a feature of all contracts. As I understand it, most contracts contain a clause to meet the contingency of either increased wages or increased prices of materials, such as the recent increase of £4 per ton for steel. Obviously, many contracts, when they were fixed, anticipated that sort of thing, and therefore a clause in the contract does meet that contingency. If it does not, and if there is opposition to the operation of such a clause, the price will assuredly be increased under the various schedule heads so as to give adequate cover; so the hon. Member's argument does not hold water.
I should like to deal with the argument of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). He made an enormous impact on the Scottish Grand Committee. By his method of addressing us in such loud tones in the confined space of the Scottish Grand Committee Room, he did for once have a rather enlivening effect, which I enjoyed. He is regarded as a very good mathematician but it did appear to me, in listening to his case, that our difficulty in dealing with him is that he establishes his own rules—and only he knows them. He will even change his rules in an attempt to win his case. His total figure of £94 million in the beginning, in relation to the £200 million asked, he changed to £33 million to suit his argument. He does not bother about rates of interest or repayment periods. Amortisation is merely a passing phase with him.
In local authority circles, in connection with local authority finance, he would be completely laughed out of court by the rules he lays down in financial matters in this House. If we applied his rules on this occasion to the provision of a municipal house, after the estimate and firm offer and the final contract price had been fixed, which we would borrow over 80 years, he would recover the loan charges in rent, if his argument is correct, over one year. That is his diagnosis of electricity and the price charged. I suggest that we do not accept his method in so far as finance for hydro-electricity is concerned.
Further, I disagree with his case for coal-fed stations as against hydro-electric installations. I do not think we should accept it because if we did it would mean that the Highlands of Scotland would have no electricity. Frankly, those of us with an interest in the Highlands are not going to accept his case. After construction of the dams, tunnels—

Sir H. Williams: What tunnels?

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Manuel: Well, they had the Tummel running into a tunnel in one of the schemes. After construction of the dams, tunnels and power stations, the yearly on-cost is much cheaper. Hydroelectricity is saving huge coal tonnage, and also transport.

Mr. Nabarro: Huge?

Mr. Manuel: Yes, huge. I am talking about the necessary coal that would have to be transported by the railways if we generated electricity by coal-fed stations. A huge quantity would have to be taken into the Highlands, and the transport costs would cause a huge loss.

Mr. Nabarro: I have twice said this evening what I said in Committee. There is more than enough electricity already generated by the hydro-electric schemes to look after all the needs of the seven crofter counties plus all industrial development in the foreseeable future. That is all we are arguing about on this Bill, which is solely for grid supplies.

Sir Edward Boyle: On a point of order. I have always understood that the main purpose of the Report stage was to bring forward Amendments so that the Government could consider particular points, which have perhaps already been considered at rather greater length in Committee, but which the Government have been asked to reconsider. Surely in the last half hour we have been considering the general principle of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker: I have made repeated efforts to call the House to order in this matter. There has been a disposition to treat this Amendment, which involves only £50 million, as involving the whole principle of the Bill and the whole question of electrical generation throughout the country, by both water power and coal. I cannot any further tolerate this wideness of discussion. The House is now in possession of my mind on the subject and further speeches, if any, should be directed strictly to the Amendment.

Mr. Manuel: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and also the hon. Member for Hands-worth (Sir E. Boyle), with his knowledge of procedure, for getting me back to the point—if I ever went off it. I thought I was dealing with the point made by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
I hope that the board will have the authority, and that the Government will resist as strenously as possible this division, this split in their own ranks. I hope they will not give way to this writhing and twisting dissension, actively led by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, who has even fallen out with his own county council, Tory-led though


it is. I hope the board will have the authority to borrow the £200 million for the necessary period, and that it will continue its experiments in connection with peat and gas turbines and the utilisation of wind power. I congratulate the board, and I feel that all right-thinking people are behind it in the necessary efforts which it is making on behalf of the Highlands of Scotland.

Colonel Alan Gomme-Duncan: I do not intend to detain the House for more than a couple of minutes, and I certainly shall not attempt to follow the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) in his very varied speech. In any case, I should be out of order if I did, and therefore I will not try it. I should, however, like to deal with one thing he said, and that is the suggestion that the late Government initiated hydro-electric development in Scotland, because that is too fantastic to allow to pass. He has forgotten the 1943 Act; he has forgotten the Grampian Electricity Supply Company, which was long before that.
I wish to come to the Amendment, and to a point which I raised in Committee, namely, that whether it be £200 million or £150 million, I hope we shall realise that all public authorities or public companies which have extra facilities given to them for borrowing will be sorely tempted to exercise those powers unreasonably. Therefore, it is of the greatest importance that this House should keep a close eye on the expenditure of this money.
Merely saying that power is given to someone to borrow does not necessarily mean that they shall do so, and as quickly as possible. It is of the greatest importance that careful examination be given to this important matter, whatever may be the figure.

Mr. J. Grimond: I do not think the hon. and gallant Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) need have great fear. Only this afternoon it was proved that the Treasury were examining very carefully any proposition to spend more money. Incidentally, it has been explained again and again that all we are talking about is that the board may have power to come and ask whether they can borrow. They are not being given £200 million or £150 million.
I want to correct the impression that may have been given by the seconder of this Amendment that anyone who wants electricity in the Highlands has only to press a button and it flows there and then because there is plenty of it. I am sure he did not want to give that impression. If we want to retain the population we have in the Highlands, we must give people reasonable amenities according to modern standards.
This is not a question of water-power or the saving of coal. It will require capital expenditure, but we should scrutinise that capital expenditure to see if it is justified. Let us have all the scrutiny that hon. Members desire, but do not let it go out from this House that we shall hold back from that very desirable capital expenditure in the Highlands by which we may retain the population of those areas and give them real hope for the future.
That is the danger if we cut this figure from £200 million to £150 million. It does not mean that less will be spent this year or next, but that the people in those areas, such as Hoy in my constituency, and in the Western Isles, will feel that once again the promises that were made to them years ago will fall by the wayside and de-population will thereby be allowed to continue without any notice being taken by the people in the South.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: I am surprised at the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) demolishing his own point, because he started by saying that we would not take anything away by reducing this amount of borrowing power. All we are seeking to do is to retain proper Parliamentary control at the only point where Parliamentary control can be maintained. It is all very well for the hon. Member to say, "Oh, yes, but you get borrowing powers and then you have to get Treasury permission to borrow the money or to start the scheme"—

Mr. Manuel: It is much more than that.

Mr. Macpherson: I am coming to that. It is all very well to say that, but it is not Parliamentary control. It does not help us to get Parliamentary control—

Mr. Grimond: I tried to confine myself very nearly to the Amendment. I do not see how the question of £200 million or £150 million will give any better Parliamentary control. I say, have it by all means but I do not see how, by reducing the amount, there will be more or less control.

Mr. A. Woodburn: May I put this to the hon. Gentleman? Is he not forgetting that even after this happens, no scheme can proceed without the board coming to the House for approval of the scheme on which the money is to be spent?

Mr. Macpherson: I am fully aware of that, but we have to consider the following points. First, are powers to this extent necessary now? Second, have powers to this extent generally been given to other bodies? Is that the normal constitutional practice? Third, are these powers really desirable now? This Amendment is merely to reduce the borrowing authority of the Board from £200 million to £150 million. If the full powers are not necessary now, then I submit that it is not right for Parliament to agree to them.
At no time has it been argued that the whole of the amount is necessary now, and that is what we ask the Joint Under-Secretary to explain when he comes to reply. Let us consider the present position. We are asked to give borrowing powers of £200 million, but as has been pointed out, the amount borrowed so far, or authorised to be borrowed, is only £56 million. The amount spent on capital development in 1950 was given in the last report as £12,250,000, and it was revealed that labour had been reduced by half. We have the restrictions on capital development as another factor.
Will my hon. Friend tell us, when he replies, what is likely to be the annual rate of borrowing? If it is around £12,250,000, it is clear that it will be a considerable time before this money is spent. It has just been stated that £94 million borrowing had been authorised so far, and the Joint Under-Secretary of State told us that schemes before the Department amounted to £30 million; so that everything which has been authorised, or is at present being considered, totals £124 million.
That is surely well within the limit of £150 million. How long is it before other schemes, not yet submitted, are likely to be started? In any case, why should Parliament give borrowing powers so far in advance of actual borrowing? This is relinquishing the one control which Parliament seems to have over these nationalised industries. It will be more than seven years before the amount in this Amendment is exceeded at the present annual rate of expenditure.
I suggest that we ought to have some detailed explanation from the Joint Under-Secretary as to why the full amount of £200 million is actually required before we give this authority. It may be said, and I know that it is argued in some quarters, that my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is interfering in Scottish affairs.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Manuel: Only in the Tory Press.

Mr. Macpherson: It might well be deduced from what has been said tonight that that is so, and it is widely suggested in some places in Scotland. But I was going to say that it is interesting to note the reaction of the board itself, which has indicated that it does not want shackles put on it. In what way are we putting shackles on it by exercising proper Parliamentary control over borrowing? I do not come here to denigrate the board or to snipe at it, but we should have much better information as to the way in which this money is likely to be spent before we part with these considerable powers.
10.45 p.m.
After all, I think we ought to compare what has been done by other boards. For example, the Colonial Development and Welfare Act, 1949, increased borrowing powers from £17,500,000 to £20 million. The Airways Corporations Act increased the power from £50 million to £60 million, and there was another increase in the Colonial development powers—those I quoted just now were annual powers—to £25 million, and to raise the total from £120 million to £140 million. In this case the increase is from £100 million to £200 million, and that ought to be pointed out.
It is no answer for my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary to enumerate


safeguards, as he did at an earlier stage—from the board to the British Electricity Authority, to the Secretary of State, to Parliament. These are a poor substitute for control by Parliament of this sort of expenditure. It looks as if this is another case of thinking of a number and doubling it.
There is one other point to which I should like to draw attention. The conception behind the Act of 1943, as has already been pointed out, was that the cost of electricity supply to remote parts would be made up from the profits on electricity sold outside the board's area at guaranteed prices and based on the most efficient scheme in Scotland. The Joint Under-Secretary has admitted that the cost of current hydro-electric schemes in Scotland is £200 a kilowatt. That was one weak point in a first-rate speech.
If the board cannot sell its surplus output to the British Electricity Authority at a profit, then the whole economic basis of the scheme for development of hydroelectricity in Scotland is undermined. If that occurred, we should not be justified in granting even an extra £50 million. It is on that point I hope my hon. Friend will again concentrate, because the position is not as rosy as my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) indicated.
The board are selling to the British Electricity Authority electricity at little over 7d. a unit whereas the average cost of generation spread over the whole year was 481d. a unit. Why has there been no division of generating cost figures, and why has Parliament not been given that division? How can we make up our minds whether it is possible to give powers when we do not know what is the cost of new electricity plants and what it is running at now? The total cost of a unit sold is 1.28d. a unit whereas it is selling at 7d. a unit. I know that in that figure I have added in all the transmission costs and the rest of it, but it is a point to watch carefully.
There is not nearly enough information. Had we not given to the board something not given to any of the other nationalised industries, there would not have been the need for this long debate. We could have judged this matter for ourselves. Throughout the debate we

have not had answers to these questions, and it is time we had them. I submit with the utmost respect to the House that borrowing powers for an additional £50 million are sufficient in the existing economic situation. We are not trying to take away from the Highlands or the Board any kind of development powers. What we are trying to do is to assert proper Parliamentary control.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Henderson Stewart): Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I were now to answer some of the points which have been raised.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: On a point of order. Will the hon. Gentleman be answering the other questions which hon. Members wish to ask him?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member had better wait to see how we get along.

Mr. MacMillan: This is an all-important point. There may be other questions, and I am asking whether the hon. Gentleman will also answer the other questions which have not yet been asked.

Mr. Speaker: This is a Report stage, and we are dealing with an Amendment. There is another stage to come. If the hon. Gentleman speaks now, he will have exhausted his right to speak on this stage.

Mr. Stewart: We have tonight bad a repetition of the debate which we had for three days during the Committee stage. All who were on the Committee are familiar with the general case which has been advanced. But whereas during the Committee stage my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) moved that "two hundred" should be replaced by "one hundred and ten," he is now prepared to substitute "one hundred and fifty," so we are apparently £40 million more creditable than we were at the time of the Committee stage. That is all to the good. I observed with great pleasure tonight, too, that my hon. Friend said most emphatically that the board is doing well. That is very encouraging. I did not gather that that was his view during the Committee stage.
I believe that we can deal with the matter fairly briefly I raise no objection—nobody could raise any objection—


to a case being put, as it has been put by my hon. Friends the Members for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) and Caithness and Sutherland, which says in effect "This is a considerable financial transaction. Be careful what you are doing."
That is a perfectly proper thing to say, and it is also proper to criticise what the board is doing. I am not here to provide a white sheet of impeccability for the board. The Chairman and the general manager of the board are the first to admit that they have made mistakes. They told me that the other day, and they expect to make mistakes again.
Where these occur, it is the duty of hon. Members on all sides of the House to make representations to the board and to the Government—if they see any faults, failings, inefficiency or extravagance. This is not somebody's private board; it is a Scottish board. It is part of the Scottish heritage now. I urge hon. Members to look at it as a piece of Scotland's heritage which we must certainly maintain and try to improve. The Bill is necessary for the maintenance of that Scottish heritage, and I shall shortly ask the House to reject the Amendment. I do that for a number of very good reasons which should appeal to hon. Members in all parts of the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland was concerned about finance and thought he saw some error in certain of my remarks during the Committee stage. He said that at one time the board was financed by the National Debt Commissioners. That is true, and it still is. The National Debt Commissioners chose to invest in the Hydro-Electric Board. That was not a subsidy. The National Debt Commissioners might have invested in any other enterprise in the country, but it chose to do it that way.
I contend that that does not in any way alter the statement I made that up to this date the operations of the Board have not cost the British taxpayer a penny.

Sir H. Williams: In view of the hon. Gentleman's statement that this is a Scottish heritage, why did not he ask the people of Scotland to subscribe the money?

Mr. Stewart: I thought that my hon. Friend would have realised by now that the great part of the wealth of the British Empire is produced by Scotsmen anyway. On that point my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland need not be unduly anxious, and I do not think that it in any way contradicts what I said.
He thought also that he saw a mistake in my statement on interest charges. I said that the board met interest charges out of revenue. That is true. It is obvious that while a scheme is being built up—the dams, and the power stations, and so forth—and before there is any return from the project, one cannot charge interest to revenue because there is no revenue. As soon as the scheme is completed and the revenue begins to flow, the full interest charges are met out of revenue. There is nothing unusual about that. I am sure that my hon. Friend knows better than I do that that is common to all large projects of this kind.
On another point my hon. Friend suggested that I may have been guilty of a slip of the tongue. He suggested that I said in Committee that the guarantee of the Treasury in this matter was not for the capital and the interest, but only for one of them. If I said that I had no intention of doing so. I can assure him that the guarantee of the Treasury is for the capital and the interest. There has never been any doubt about that.

Sir D. Robertson: The point is that in the Committee stage the Joint Under-Secretary said the Treasury guaranteed the borrowing as to capital and interest. The fact is, of course, that it also guaranteed the stock as to capital repayment and interest, and the stock only stands at £75 today for the £100 which it cost.

Mr. Stewart: That does not alter in any sense the statement which I made to the Committee. That is exactly what I have said.
Let us look at the question of Parliamentary control. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland is right in asking for the proper Parliamentary control in this matter, but if Parliament does not choose, if the Opposition does not choose, to raise this issue; if private Members do not use their many opportunities to raise this matter, the Hydro-Electric Board cannot be blamed for that.


There are many opportunities in this House for the matter to be raised. Members in all parties have failed to take advantage of those opportunities. I am sure that if any Member, in any part of the House, chooses to raise the matter in the annual debates we shall be most ready to listen to him and to do all we can to help him.
I am not allowed to touch upon the constitution of the Board. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland talked about misuse of Highland resources, and suggested that the price charged to his constituents was far in excess of the price charged to the grid. The figures of fivepence and fivepence-halfpenny which he gave are true. But he bad not been looking accurately at the schedule, because the fivepence is the highest rate that is in the schedule. I will read the schedule. It states:
Primary units per quarter are allowed to every habitable room and each primary unit consumed is charged at 5½d. Nine times the number of primary units consumed are charged at 2d.…
And so it goes on. I think the hon. Gentleman was a little unfair in his figures. He should have given the average figure offered to the consumers in the Highlands, which in fact does not differ substantially from that charged to consumers in other parts of the country. I do not think there is a great deal in that point.
11.0 p.m.
Now I turn to the hon. Member for Kidderminster—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] Perhaps he is not here. He suggested that the capital cost per kilowatt of hydro schemes is three times that of coal projects, but that the subsequent cost of actual generating is three times cheaper in the former case than in the latter: so that in the end we are just about balanced. Actually we are a little better than balanced because the cost of generating electricity by hydro is so much less than that of generating it by steam stations that we gain in the end. I will be very pleased to let him have the figures.
The hon. Member for Kidderminster was concerned with capital investment, and here I am really surprised at an hon. Member who is undoubtedly learned in these matters. If the purpose of this Bill was to enable the Hydro-Electric

Board or encourage them to spend £100 million within the next year or something like that, there would indeed have been something in his argument. But that is not what it is for at all.

Sir H. Williams: What is it for?

Mr. Stewart: The purpose of this Bill is to increase from £100 million to £200 million the statutory limit on the amount of borrowed money which the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board may have outstanding at any time. The increase is required because the board has now been given borrowing consent amounting to £96 million. This amount has not yet been borrowed—the total borrowed is about £57 million—but the amount is earmarked for existing schemes approved and under construction and other work.
I invite hon. Members who are in doubt about this matter to listen to what I am about to say. The Bill itself does not give the board power to borrow any money. Before it can do so, it has to get the consent of the Secretary of State. I have said it before, but I have to say it again. Before it can make a stock issue or borrow on overdraft with a Treasury guarantee, it has to obtain the sanction of the Treasury. The board cannot carry out any generating projects or erect any transmission lines without the authority of a Construction Scheme, which has to be approved by the British Electricity Authority, confirmed by the Secretary of State and submitted to Parliament and approved by both Houses.

Sir H. Williams: By positive or negative procedure?

Mr. Stewart: Negative. There is still a further safeguard against the board incurring more capital expenditure than the position of the country justifies, even if it already had borrowing consent to cover it. All new capital schemes of any size must be authorised by my right hon. Friend before they can be commenced.
The total value of the work done in a year is regulated in accordance with the decisions of the Government on investment policies. Therefore, there will not be one halfpenny advanced in this matter unless it fits in with the investment policy of the Government. There is no question whatever, once this Bill is passed, of the board running through £100 million just like lightning. I do,


therefore, ask the House most seriously to believe that in the machinery we have now established, there are all the necessary controls.
I have to tell the House of a slight development which has taken place in this direction since we last met in Committee. I recognise the anxiety that was in the minds of hon. Members on account of the rising costs of materials and so on. I was worried as to whether the Government, through the Secretary of State for Scotland, was kept closely enough in contact with those rising costs and whether the contact was continuous enough. We have been in touch with the Hydro-Electric Board, and some improvement is likely to be brought about.
It is suggested that the Board, in addition to the present procedure which I have just described, should keep the Scottish Home Department informed, from time to time, of increases in wages and materials. So much depends on the future course of inflation, that it is not easy to make further suggestions for control at this stage, but it seems that that is some advance. We should now know from month to month what is happening, and when the Board comes with a new proposition we shall not be taken by surprise.
I am sorry to have to say this again, but my hon. Friend, the Member for Kidderminster, still has not got the essence of this Scottish hydro scheme. The essence of the scheme is that unless we export a large proportion of the electricity created to the south, there cannot be any electricity for the Highlands. When the hon. Gentleman says there is enough power there to satisfy the needs of all the Highlands, as if to suggest we should stop at once meeting the demands of the grid, then he shows a complete ignorance of the whole project. I must ask him, with the greatest respect, to go back and study the original debates. If he will do so, he will problably sleep much more happily tonight because I am sure he is genuinely concerned about this matter.

Sir H. Williams: The hon. Gentleman says the object is not to provide electricity for the Hydro-Electric Board, but to export power to the south. What will the load factor be?

Mr. Speaker: The main purpose of the Bill does not arise in this Amendment.

Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, there is a complete, crushing, reply, but, if you rule it out of order, I shall have to keep my answer for another day.
May I conclude these remarks? I have looked at this problem with the greatest of care and I am sure that the fears of hon. Members are not justified. I believe the machinery we have now got of control, management and superintendence is adequate.
I have had the figures given me of the growing needs of Scotland for electricity in the next five years. If I were to give these figures, the House would experience the same concern as I do. At the present rate of growth of the use of electricity and the present rate at which coal power stations are reaching obsolescence, the position in five years' time will be that, unless we get the maximum output from the Scottish hydro-electric scheme, Scotland's position will be in danger. It is going to be a very tight thing to balance supply with needs, and unless hydro power is given the opportunity to make its fullest contribution we are all going to suffer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] It is no use hon. Members saying "Nonsense"—I can provide the figures.
For those reasons I feel that an Amendment of this kind would be disastrous and I therefore must ask the House to reject it.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. P. G. T. Buchan-Hepburn): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. P. G. T. Buchan-Hepburn) rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.

Question, "That 'two hundred' stand part of the Bill," put accordingly, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

11.11 p.m.

Sir Herbert Williams: Before we part with this Bill, which does propose a very large increase in the borrowing powers of the hydro-electric authority in Scotland, I think we might briefly consider whether this expansion is desirable. We can only discuss what is in the Bill and in the Bill is £200 million. Technically, I am not as good


on this subject as I was some years ago, because my connection with electricity supply has terminated; but I know a little about it. There is a delusion that hydroelectric power is cheaper than steam power. That is only true in certain circumstances, where there is a more or less constant load.

Sir William Darling: Would a steam coal station in the north of Scotland—in Caithness, for instance—be less or more economical than a hydro-electric one?

Sir H. Williams: I have been to the town of Tongue, from which a lot of Scotsmen derive their habits. It is in Sutherland, I believe. I am dealing with the general idea that some hon. Members have that hydro-electric generation is cheaper than steam generation. It entirely depends for what you are using it. The idea behind hydro-electric generation is to have continuous processes, with a constant load, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Then hydro-electric power is much cheaper than steam power.
But if one has an ordinary mixed load, which one gets in a town—in London or anywhere else—my contention is that Battersea Power Station would beat the hydro-electric power station. There is an assumption that there is something miraculous and mysterious about hydroelectric power. Once the hydro-electric station is built the charges are small and there is a rather small staff; but the trouble is that in Scotland—

Mr. Woodburn: If that argument is correct it would apply more strongly to a peak load station, yet a peak load station, built in Scotland, can produce electricity far cheaper than would be possible even if Battersea Power Station were built today for that purpose.

Sir H. Williams: I quite understand that with the station which runs constantly day and night, more or less at full power, one gets very economical generation, and when the peak load comes on other stations are taken in; but taking the general average of supply from steam stations.

Mr. Frederick Willey: On a point of order. As I understand it, on Third Reading one discusses what is in the Bill. As this is

The Hydro-Electric Development (Scotland) Bill, I should have thought that what was not in the Bill was steam generation of electricity.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): I agree it is only to extend the borrowing powers of the board. The hon. Gentleman began by saying he could only speak about what was in the Bill, and I hope he will keep to his own rule.

Sir H. Williams: I think I can say I am in order because what is the purpose for which the borrowing powers are to be extended? It is all based on the assumption that it is desirable to increase largely the generation of electricity by the hydro-electric method. That is the purpose. If that proposition is not true then the justification for the increase from £100 million to £200 million no longer exists.
It seems to me that the case for the Bill is destroyed if the case for a hydroelectric system and its indefinite extension is not made out. That is why I was using this argument, and that is why I think I was in order. We all know that in places where the mountains are high the hydro-electric system is very successful. If you drop a gallon of water one foot you get one result; if you drop it 100 feet you get another result. You cannot generate electricity economically unless you have a high fall, and to a large extent in Norway, Italy, and France where they have high falls of water—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think this is going beyond the borrowing powers of the Bill.

Sir H. Williams: The whole basis of the increase in the borrowing powers is that it is desirable indefinitely to extend hydro-electric generation in Scotland. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Certainly, I am not talking about hydro-electric power in the Orkneys.

Mr. J. Grimond: Not indefinitely, but only up to the amount in the Bill.

Sir H. Williams: I do not see what hydro-electric power has to do with the Orkneys.

Mr. Grimond: Only because the board makes the electricity in the Orkneys.

Sir H. Williams: It does not seem to me proper that the Hydro-Electric Board should run diesel engines.
Here we are being asked to extend the sum by £100 million. Before we entrust anyone with the ultimate responsibility for this sum we ought to know a little more about it. We ought to be satisfied that their projects are likely to be wise. They have spent only £56 million. They have authorisations up to £98 million. They will not have any need for this expansion for several years, and why should Parliament lose its control?
It is true the Treasury and the Secretary of State come in, and later an Order is made against which we may pray, but the primary control of Parliament is done away with if we grant this increase, which is a deliberate incitement to the board to go forward on the assumption that ultimately they will be able to spend £200 million. That sum in relation to the electrical supply of the country is a very large sum indeed.
If hon. Gentlemen look at the "Statistical Digest" and see what has been already spent, they will see it is out of relation to the establishment of the most efficient electrical supply system in this country. It is not as if the Hydro-Electric Board were at the beginning of hydro-electric supply in Scotland. It is 20 years since I went to Tummel Bridge. There is also the great enterprise at Kinlochleven.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman will note, too, that Kinlochleven was launched by a private company and not a nationalised industry.

Sir H. Williams: At Kinlochleven there is a continuous metallurgic process for the production of aluminium. We had a discussion, I think in 1942, about the Glen Affric scheme, promoted by Mr. Steven Hardie, for the production of calcium carbide. Hon Gentlemen opposite were opposed to it because they did not realise what a great friend Mr. Hardie, as he then was, was going to be to them. I supported that Bill.

Mr. M. MacMillan: So did some of us.

Sir H. Williams: Some, yes.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is now going far beyond the scope of this Bill.

Sir H. Williams: I agree, Sir Charles. I was led astray a little by the hon. Gentleman opposite.
We are now deciding that the hydroelectric schemes of Scotland are ultimately to involve a capital expenditure of at least £200 million. I do not think that the efficiency of the water supply in Scotland justifies a £200 million project, and for that reason I do not like this Bill.

11.21 p.m.

Mr. A. Woodburn: We view the scene tonight with just a little sadness and some sympathy for the Government, who are faced with the peculiar situation sometimes described in the Press as "the tail trying to wag the dog." Let me re-assure the Government at once that, if those who oppose this Bill carry their opposition to a Division, I shall advise my hon. and right hon. Friends to support the Government and see that they are not defeated.
I regret this attack on the Government and on the Hydro-Electric Board, which has been misjudged and unfair, and has done a great disservice to the development of a great enterprise in Scotland. I regret especially the attitude of Highland Members, with perhaps the exception of my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) whose constituency is so far not benefiting very much from the Bill. Members for other Highland constituencies have actually joined forces with the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), and under his leadership have done their best, during the several days on which we have discussed this Bill, to destroy it and the whole purpose of it.

Major D. McCallum: The right hon. Gentleman is not quite correct. He will find that the majority of Highland Members are behind this board.

Mr. Woodburn: I am glad to have that assurance, because it has not been apparent from the debates we have had on this Bill. Listening to Highland Members, and remembering that the country is spending £200 million of its money in development of the Highlands, I have felt that the kind of reception given to this Bill by some of them is a great discouragement to other hon. Members ever to try to help the Highlands in any direction.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Surely the right hon. Gentleman will agree that every Highland Member on this side of the House has spoken in favour of the current produced now being used in the Highlands.

Mr. Woodburn: That interjection in itself shows a complete misunderstanding of the whole scheme. The hon. Gentleman was the only one who mentioned any benefit that came to the Highlands, because he explained that in his house he had got electricity. That is the only house in the Highlands that has got any electricity, judging by the speeches of Highland Members. I think that their behaviour on this Bill has been absolutely shocking and a great discouragement to the rest of the House to try to get anything for the Highlands. It is just as well that this scheme is not only for the benefit of the Highlands and that some of the electricity will go to parts of Scotland which appreciate it.
This winter we have been able to avoid electricity cuts, largely because of electricity coming from this scheme into the southern part of Scotland. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), who has led the attack on the whole scheme, has never studied the matter. The whole of his speeches are riddled with misunderstandings, misconceptions and misjudgments. He continually talks about our sending electricity from the hydro-electric scheme into England. Not one kilowatt of that electricity comes into England.

Mr. Nabarro: There will be.

Mr. Woodburn: Not at all. Why should they transmit electricity from the Highlands to England when they can do it from a hydro-electric scheme much nearer at hand?

Mr. Nabarro: That is the whole purpose of the scheme.

Mr. Woodburn: Not at all. The purpose of the scheme is to send electricity from the Highlands into the grid which supplies the southern part of Scotland, and with the income that is derived from the sale of that electricity, to enable the Hydro-Electric Board to give benefits to the Highlands and to provide electricity for an area which economically could not otherwise sustain an electricity undertaking.

Mr. Nabarro: The right hon. Gentleman must not misrepresent what I have said. I have said on a dozen different occasions that the electricity would be put into the Lowlands grid, and when the investment contemplated under this Bill is completed, it will lead to the feeding of electricity into the north of England.

Mr. Woodburn: No, the hon. Gentleman went on talking about this electricity going to England. He is now again modifying his speech, as he has done with every other speech he has made, in order to correct it when he has been corrected. He manipulates it. As my hon. Friend says, he has rules of mathematics peculiar to himself. This scheme is not only for the benefit of the Highlands and not only for the benefit of the South of Scotland, but for the whole of this country, for two reasons. First, it makes a contribution to the availability of electricity to the country; second, it economises in what is the most valuable product of this country, both in its international aspect and for home productivity, namely coal.
If a scheme of this kind will save four million tons of coal a year in the course of time—and that can be done by no other method, even by the method of the hon. Gentleman who wants to push all his patent gas grids and other things of that kind—

Mr. Nabarro: Only the right hon. Gentleman has brought to this House the allegation that four million tons of coal a year will be saved by this scheme. He knows that cannot be true. There is nothing on record to support his statement. It is a fancy, a figment of his imagination.

Mr. Woodburn: Not at all. The schemes that are already under contemplation will save two million tons of coal a year.

Mr. Nabarro: The right hon. Gentleman said four million.

Mr. Woodburn: Just a moment. The schemes which are in survey and under construction will save two million tons of coal. Those that are expected to be developed in the next 10 years under this Bill will save up to four million tons of coal a year. Those are the estimates.
Nearly all the arguments that have been used against the Bill have been mis-


conceived and are unsound. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) has, I understand, some personal dispute with the board over some coal in Arbroath, which he seems to be bringing into this Bill, and it apparently accounts for the bitterness he has introduced into this discussion.

Sir D. Robertson: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw that, because it is wholly untrue. I have no dispute whatsoever with the board. All I have asked it to do is to consider generating electricity in Sutherland, where there is a coal pit, rather than to send the coal from Sutherland to Rotterdam to generate electricity there. It seems to me a farcical situation but there is no dispute about it.

Mr. Woodburn: The hon. Gentleman is very mild about it tonight, but I think everyone will agree that in earlier speeches he has delivered violent tirades and spent a great deal of time on the question of coal. That is a matter for himself, but he has no right to introduce into a public discussion as to the merits of a great scheme of this kind some matter about which he has a dispute of his own. It is quite outside this Bill.
The other point of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland was that there were no electrical experts on this board. But I would like hon. Gentlemen to notice that his reason for wanting people on the board is to control finances. I am not sure whether electrical experts are necessarily experts in finance, and I think that a good canny Scotsman in charge of this board who has experience of finance would probably be a better man for controlling finance than an electrical expert who may not know the first thing about it.

Sir D. Robertson: The right hon. Gentleman is putting words into my mouth that I have never used at any time. I simply said in the earlier stages of this debate that, under the Acts passed by the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member, they insisted that on every electricity board there should be not less than four and not more than six members qualified by experience in the generation of electricity. Hon. Members opposite supported it, and I think that we did, too.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman cannot go back to discuss other Acts of Parliament.

Mr. Woodburn: The opposition to this borrowing is based on quite fallacious arguments. The hon. Gentleman should remember the old saying that "the experts should be on tap, but not on top." Parliament calls in the experts, but it does not have a committee of experts running Parliament, and that applies to the board.
I would also say that I was surprised at the attack made on part-time directors of concerns, for at least, I think that that was unfair to some of his colleagues who sit on twenty different boards, and must give little time to each.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is being led astray. We must confine ourselves to the Bill.

Mr. Woodburn: The other point which has been made is the difference between coal and hydro-electric stations; and here, the hon. Member for Kidderminster introduced some mathematics about a peculiar costing system which, so far as I know, do not apply anywhere in the world. He appears to think that he has some knowledge of this, but it was not obvious to us, and what he said is not the belief of those with any experience of business. The idea that the cost of electricity for one year is going to have charged against it the whole cost of the establishment of hydro-electric schemes, lasting perhaps for a hundred years, is something quite farcical. I just do not understand what the hon. Gentleman is thinking about. As regards the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), who does not seem now to be with us—

Sir H. Williams: I am here.

Mr. Woodburn: Well, what he said about the "mixed" station may be all right in theory, but it does not work out; it does not apply in practice as between the coal station and the hydro-electric station.

Mr. Nabarro: Why not?

Mr. Woodburn: Because when one turns off the water one does not use the supply, but when one turns off electricity, one does not stop consuming coal. The economy in water power is that it


gives electricity at a time of the year when it is most needed, and not at that period of the year when electricity is needed least. It is the one way in which electricity can be stored; and here it is stored in the hills of Scotland, and that, in itself, is a great safeguard so far as industry is concerned.

Sir H. Williams: Has not the right hon. Gentleman found plenty of water in Perth in the month of August?

Mr. Woodburn: There is water in Perth; Perth has many forms of refreshment, and I have no doubt that the hon. Member has patronised them all.
The only argument that the hon. Member for Kidderminster was able safely to make was that about capital investment—is it wise to put it into hydroelectric schemes, rather than into grates?

Mr. Nabarro: It is just one example.

Mr. Woodburn: That example, and I do not want to describe it rudely, is quite impracticable, because, as a matter of fact, no more money can be spent on grates than is being spent uow. If the hon. Gentleman is paying attention to what is going on in the House he will find there is a great campaign to reduce the use of pig iron for grates, so that there will be fewer grates produced.
It is not for the Hydro-Electric Board to decide what degree of capital investment will be made in hydro-electric schemes. That is done by the Government. What money goes to what investment, and what is the best thing to be done in the present circumstances for the safety of the country is controlled by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury, and I should have thought it was much safer to leave it in the hands of his advisers rather than that he should take the amateur advice he is getting from the dissentients in the House. We can safely leave it to the Chancellor's advisers to deal with the matter.
This scheme is the greatest single contribution ever made to Highland development. There has never been anything like this amount of money put into the Highlands. True, some of the benefits are going to the country as a whole, which is supplying the funds. It is not philanthropy to the Highlands, it is a national investment. Incidentally it is

making an addition to the electricity resources of the country, and making a saving which will increase the saving of coal. There is no investment better or wiser because the price of coal may increase—and the hon. Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary gave us a shock tonight when he talked about the process of inflation: if that is his prophecy, and inflation is to proceed, it means the cost of coal will go up. If the price is doubled that makes not the slightest difference to hydro-electricity because water comes down from heaven at the same price that it comes down today—absolutely free of charge.

Mr. Nabarro: Is the right hon. Gentleman really trying to convince the House that hydro-electric schemes can be made without steel and cement, both of which are major consumers of coal in their manufacture?

Mr. Woodburn: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, if there is a scheme like the Loch Sloy station and a steam station, and the price of coal is doubled the costs of the latter station will go up tremendously, while the cost of the Loch Sloy scheme remains the same. One regret was that these schemes were not built before the war, for with things as they were the cost of electricity today at pre-war construction rates would be an asset to industry and the country. There is no investment better or wiser for the country, and I would advise my hon. Friends to support the Government, and reject this unfair and unwise attack made not only on the scheme but also on the Government. It may not be often in this Parliament that we shall have the pleasure of supporting the Government but it will he our duty and pleasure tonight.

11.40 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: My right hon. Friend need hardly have appealed to his hon. Friends nor have made an appeal to most hon. Gentlemen opposite. It is not our business to enter into the family squabbles of the Tory Party or to settle differences between the National Liberals and their own Front Bench. That is a domestic trouble for them to patch up. The purpose of the Bill is to extend borrowing powers to £200 million. The purpose of the Amendment was to prevent that happening. If the Amendment were—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That Amendment was negatived. We cannot discuss it now.

Mr. MacMillan: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The purpose of the Amendment was—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We cannot discuss what it was. We cannot discuss it at all.

Mr. MacMillan: I will leave that, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Do I understand that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) will be consistent and oppose the Third Reading of the Bill? I do not know whether he wants to answer that question or not, but it is rather important. Is it his intention as a Member of Parliament for a Highland constituency to oppose the Third Reading or not?

Sir D. Robertson: Was the hon. Member referring to me?

Mr. MacMillan: I was.

Sir D. Robertson: My hon. Friends and I do not propose to oppose the Third Reading.

Mr. MacMillan: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman heard what I was saying but had not the courtesy to answer, although I am glad that he is not opposing the Third Reading.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. James Stuart): It is not Question time.

Mr. MacMillan: It is not answer time either. The right hon. Gentleman should be careful what he says about Question time, because he does not always answer the questions which are put to him.
The mass of Highlanders are dismayed by the opposition to the Bill throughout its passage here. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland should not pretend that he speaks for Caithness and Sutherland in opposing the Bill. He is not speaking for his county council. He is not speaking for the people of the main burgh of his constituency. He is not speaking for the mass of the Highland people. He is speaking alone among Highland Members of Parliament in opposing the Bill at any stage.
The noble Lord the Member for Inverness (Lord Malcolm Douglas-

Hamilton), for different motives, has associated himself with some of the arguments of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, but I do not think his intention is to destroy the Bill and prevent the board having the wherewithal to continue the schemes, which all of us know are greatly benefiting, and will continue to benefit, the Highlands and Islands of Scotland.

Sir D. Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. MacMillan: I will allow the hon. Gentleman one interruption.

Sir D. Robertson: The hon. Member deserves more than one interruption because he is entirely misrepresenting the motives which actuated me. I should have thought every hon. Member would have shown some gratitude for the ventilation of the board's operations, which have not been discussed in the House since the creation of the board.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We cannot discuss them now, either.

Sir D. Robertson: I do not intend to, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but the hon. Member has imputed to me motives which are incorrect. He has said that I am not representing the people. The fight that I have waged on the Bill has been almost exclusively for the people I represent—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—because the rural areas are not getting electricity; it is going outside the area to the south.

Mr. MacMillan: I am sorry if I have interrupted the hon. Gentleman's speech. The effect of his opposition to the Bill and of the Bill being destroyed on Third Reading would be to deprive his constituents of great benefits. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) to fly into the Scottish Grand Committee and back here on his magic carpet and tell us that enough power is being generated in the Highlands. He does not know what he is talking about when he comes into the Highlands and Islands.

Mr. Nabarro: rose—

Mr. MacMillan: The bon. Gentleman has had more than his ration even in Tory days. The destruction of the Bill would deprive the Highlands of a basic


service which is essential to any industrial development of the Highland area. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) ought not to shake his head unless there is something inside it to shake. I know that his uncle was Secretary of State for Scotland. I am only sorry that this scheme was not developed on that occasion.

Mr. N. Macpherson: That is a direct misstatement of the fact. My uncle was never Secretary of State.

Mr. MacMillan: The fact remains that the Highlands are overwhelmingly in favour of this development, and they would condemn the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland if he went into the Lobby against it tonight. But I know that he will not do that. I know the private opinion of many of his constituents. I know what a disaster they would think it if the Loch Sloy scheme did not go ahead, or if the money and materials were not forthcoming. I know, too, what his county council would think.

Sir W. Darling: May I ask, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether this Highland ramble is to go on interminably?

Mr. MacMillan: On a previous occasion I advised the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) to conserve his wind for some other purpose than blethering in this House, but he has not taken my advice. I am sorry. I will refresh his memory in regard to the occasion, if he wishes. Before the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland became interested in the Highlands, or fitted himself for that purpose, he was the hon. Member for Streatham, which is quite a ramble from the Highlands. In this House the hon. Member has shown no interest in examining these schemes or the general finances of the board. He has had all the opportunities we have had. When we did not approve of something we made it clear that we did not approve. I do not know what is happening to the hon. Member for Kidderminster at the moment. I will give way to him if he wishes.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Member is attacking the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland for not previously drawing attention to matters regarding the board. The hon. Gentleman has been here since 1945—and before—and on no

single occasion has he referred in a debate to the accounts of the Hydro-Electric Board. The hon. Member is making a thoroughly dishonest statement there.

Mr. MacMillan: The hon. Member is talking through his hat on this occasion. My name was among those put to the annulment of the Loch Sloy Order, for a particular purpose.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I must ask the hon. Member, if he does not confine his remarks to the Bill, to resume his seat.

Mr. MacMillan: I am sorry that I was misled by the hon. Member for Kidderminster. The fact is that we have 37 opportunities through the year when the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland could have raised these points, occasions when he could have put the board under examination—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I must ask the hon. Member to resume his seat for not obeying my Ruling.

Mr. MacMillan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was going to speak on the Amendment but I saw Mr. Speaker and asked whether I might have wider scope on the Third Reading. I was assured I could. I therefore withdrew my name from the list of speakers—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am only here to carry out the Rules of Order; I do not make them. The hon. Member has not obeyed my Ruling, and I must ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat.

Mr. MacMillan: I have not consciously disobeyed any Ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Consciously or unconsciously, my Ruling was disobeyed.

11.51 p.m.

Mr. John Rankin: We have reached the Third Reading stage of the Bill, which has been examined with very critical eye, particularly by one individual who, if his knowledge of the Highlands is equal to his knowledge of Kinlochleven, is not a fit and proper person to conduct such an examination. I would suggest to him that he should try to learn a little more about the story of the building of this great dam there and then he will feel ashamed indeed of the system which he supports.
The Bill has been so vigorously and, by some, so viciously criticised that I think we ought not to allow it to go from this House to another place without, by our unanimous approval, showing the board our approval of the work it has done and our confidence in the work which it intends to do. I think this is very essential because it is necessary that the board, as an instrument of policy designed by this House, should know it has the confidence of the House. We can do that tonight by giving Third Reading our unanimous approval. I say that because, during proceedings on the Bill, the personnel of the board have been attacked, its methods, and control of expenditure have been attacked, and in every single case, they have been wrongly attacked. There is not one single bit of information which has been put at our disposal by the mover or the seconder of this Amendment—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: There is no Amendment before the House. It is the Third Reading.

Mr. Rankin: I am very sorry—the Amendments moved on Report and in Committee—in no single case have any of the arguments advanced been arguments that were not fully met. In addition there was an open invitation, which I am certain will be extended to any hon. Member of this House, to meet the Chairman of the board at any convenient time if they have any personal doubts on any matter discussed during these debates.
So far as the transactions of the board are concerned they are not a sealed book, and there is no top secrecy in any of their work, as the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) sought to convey during the series of debates we have had on the Bill. I suggest it is incumbent upon us now to say that the board has our full confidence, and we can show that by following the suggestion I have made and giving our unanimous approval to the Third Reading as we speed the Bill on its way to another place.

11.55 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. James Stuart): I do not wish to take up much time because I feel we have had prolonged debates on this Bill in its various stages. These debates have strayed over a very wide field. I do not want to get out of order, for obvious

reasons, and I do not want to be accused of undue repetition. But I do think that I ought to say, in view of certain criticisms which have been made, that I associate myself with what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirling (Mr. A. Woodburn), and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin), said about the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, which was that in past years it has done very valuable work in the North.
To anybody who lives in the North, which is a farming community and residential with all sorts of people, it is of vital importance it should have electric power and current provided. The board has done a lot of work and that good work should be continued. I hope it will be continued. The board deserves the thanks of the House for its work and 1 hope that we shall give the Bill an unopposed Third Reading.
The only thing I would say about the Bill is that I really begin to think the House must have a good idea of what its intentions are by now. I would, therefore, confine myself to saying that the purpose of the Bill—I feel these remarks will not surprise the House because it is nothing novel—is to increase from £100 million to £200 million the statutory limit on the amount of borrowed money which the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board may have outstanding at any time. The money is earmarked for existing schemes either approved or under construction.
The total value of the work done in a year is regulated in accordance with the decisions of the Government on investment policy. That, I think, gives a very careful safeguard. Therefore, there is no question of the board, once the Bill is passed, running through this additional £100 million in any uncontrolled fashion. It is clearly desirable there should be no interuption of the work of the board.

11.59 p.m.

Mr. Nabarro: I shall occupy the attention of the House for only a minute. A great deal of time could have been saved in Committee and on the Report stage of this Bill if one sentence out of the last speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland had been brought forward a few hours earlier, namely, that Her Majesty's Government will exercise strict control over the


capital investment of this board. That has not previously been said. The final point I make is this.

Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman's time is up.

Mr. Nabarro: I shall be foremost in pressing, during the next 12 months or more, that this nationalised industry, together with other nationalised industries, has Parliamentary time allotted to it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is quite beyond the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. M. McMillan: Should not the hon. Gentleman sit down?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman did not disobey any Ruling, and I give a warning first.

Mr. Nabarro: In view of your Ruling, Sir, I conclude by saying that I am completely satisfied with the Minister's final sentence. Had that sentence been brought forward a lot earlier, a good deal of Parliamentary time could have been saved.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

METROPOLITAN POLICE (BORROWING POWERS) BILL

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

12 midnight

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
The purpose of this Bill is to empower the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District to borrow additional sums not exceeding £5 million. The House will remember that the Bill received a unanimous Second Reading. The Bill will provide houses for Metropolitan policemen and their families, and single men's quarters. There were no Amendments on the Committee or Report stages and I hope that the House will give the Bill a speedy Third Reading, so that it can be passed into law.

Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: We have listened for many hours to hon. Members from Scotland discussing a matter concerning them, and I trust I

shall not be considered unduly parochial if I spend a very few moments on a Bill concerning police protection of the capital city of the United Kingdom, which covers a population of probably twice that of Scotland. This will not be a matter of kilowatts or Kidderminsters and other interventions from below the Gangway. We have no Metropolitan Grand Committee to discuss domestic points and leave the broad general principles to be dealt with by the House, so I think we are entitled to just a minute.
This Bill was welcomed with enthusiasm by the Opposition at all stages; indeed their enthusiasm in Committee will be remembered by the hon. Gentleman, because we provided the majority, and most of the enthusiasm. I do commend the Bill to the House. It is a borrowing Bill, like the last one, but it is very much less controversial. It is not to produce any electricity but better police protection for the Metropolis and the capital city of this country. I hope that the House will give it a Third Reading.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

FOOD SUPPLIES (PROFIT MARGINS)

12.2 a.m.

Mr. Frederick Wiley: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Butter (Amendment) Order, 1952 (S.I., 1952, No. 271), dated 12th February 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th February, be annulled.
I think it would be to the convenience of the House and expedite our business if we could have a general discussion of this and the following Orders that appear in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself, and then, if necessary, the Prayers could be put separately.
The purpose if this Order and the other Orders, which deal with bacon, cheese, sugar, oils and fats, imported canned fish, imported canned fruit, eggs and condensed milk, is to reduce the wholesale prices charged to the retailer and, generally speaking, leave the retail prices unchanged and so increase the profit margins to the grocers. As I have indicated, a large number of Orders is con-


cerned, because they cover what is a substantial award to the grocers. In fact, when I questioned the Minister in the House he estimated the aggregate amount per annum concerned to be something in the nature of £10 million. That is an appreciable addition to the food subsidy total and, of course, it must eventually be passed on to the consumer in the form of increased prices.
I am sure that the House will agree that at any rate it merits close attention. The main basis of these increased margins is the Wages Council award to the employees in the retail food trade, which took effect on 18th July of last year. Following that award and following discussions with the spokesmen of the grocers, on 17th August of last year my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, Central (Mr. Webb), who was then Minister of Food, announced that he had agreed to increase the margins received by the grocers to take account of the recent wage increase I have mentioned and for other increased costs.
In fact, this award amounted to about £1,500,000. I would emphasise in paying regard to grocers' margins we have to pay regard to the global sum—the total aggregate sum received by them—and not the individual margins. The effect of this award—as was stated at the time—was to increase the amount of the grocers' profit margins by about £1,500,000. It is true at that time, on behalf of the independent grocers, Mr. Herman Kent said this was "far below the £10 million required to meet wage increases, advances in petrol, and paper costs." Nevertheless, the award was accepted at the time. The matter was regarded by my right hon. Friend and myself as being closed and settled.
I realise well enough that such an award deals with an extraordinarily difficult problem. When we deal with grocers we deal with the independent traders who have on average about 200 registrations each, and the multiple grocers and the co-operative societies who have, on the average, 1,200 registrations. To arrive at a decision on such a matter we have to examine a detailed mass of costing figures; we have to make what we regard as proper allowance for economies in the service; we have to pay attention, if it be the case, to the increased general profitability of the

trade, and also to increased turnover, including the turnover of non-rationed commodities.
All these, and many other factors have to be taken into account, and then we have to try and adjust the margins to allow for changes in costs, and to provide the trader with a reasonable profit based—for this is the essence of the award—on his pre-war margins.
I would accept, in this context, what the Co-operative Party have said about the Ministry of Food, that
the Ministry of Food has quite deliberately narrowed margins on foodstuffs. In general, the Co-operative Movement has supported the policy of the various Ministries in narrowing margins to keep prices down. Increases in wage costs, and other expenses have given increased urgency to the need for efficient distribution. The margins on foodstuffs particularly have been rigorously controlled.
In all the circumstances, and in that way, we endeavoured to be as fair and scrupulous as we could, and we made effective this award of £1,500,000 by increasing the gap between the wholesale and retail prices on bacon and sugar, and we regarded the matter as closed.
This award of £1,500,000 was not an unsubstantial award. As a matter of fact, including the £1,500,000, the grocers have received an increase in margins, at the rate of £4 million a year since 1947, so that the award which was made, although I have indicated it did not completely satisfy the grocers, was, nevertheless, not one which in the light of experience of the past few years, could be regarded as unsubstantial. However, we got a new Minister of Food, and a new Government, pledged to economy, and pledged to cutting costs, and the grocers, no doubt apprehensive of the attitude of the Ministry, struck first.
They asked for the negotiations to be re-opened—that is, on the same basis of the wage increase in July, and the higher costs which they claimed they were incurring. Let me say at once, however presumably on further evidence tendered by the grocers, and the present Minister he awarded them a further £10 million a year. I am sure the House would agree that this demands some explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary.
Let me add, nevertheless, that I have no desire—I am sure no one has—for


the grocers, either traders or employees, to be prejudiced because they are engaging in a trade which is very largely price controlled—although, in fact, the present Minister has shown a tendency to lessen the extent of the range of price control. Again, whatever arguments there may be about retail distribution, I for one would not believe it right to endeavour to change that structure of distribution through the instrument of the profit margin.
My simple case is that my right hon. Friend and I made what appeared to be a fair settlement in August and, without hearing the Parliamentary Secretary's explanation, I am not aware of any radical change of circumstances since then. The Board of Trade returns for 1951 show that the value of turnover in 1951 was 12 per cent. higher than in 1950. The latest returns of group trading profits that I have been able to obtain relating to the multiples do not indicate a fall in their profitability.
I give one or two examples which are typical. In 1949, Home and Colonial Stores made a trading profit of £1,685,000; in the following year, 1950, their profit is shown as £2,101,000. In 1949, the Maypole Dairy showed a profit of £352,000; in the following year they showed a profit of £528,000. In 1950, Cooper's Stores showed a profit of £265,000; in 1951 they showed a profit of £274,000. In 1950, Button's showed a profit of £109,000; in 1951, they showed a profit of £151,000.
I would emphasise that it is inevitable, in this system of margin fixing to look at facts in retrospect. It may be one of the disadvantages of the system. It may be that the prospect for the grocers if the present Minister remains in office is a grim one, and that they may not look with any confidence to an increased turnover this year. But as far as margins are concerned, we cannot make allowance for such factors until they are reached. The Parliamentary Secretary will have more up-to-date figures than we have got, but I am sure he will agree that we are obliged to examine this on a costings basis.
We do know, however, that at present, as a result of the Budget grocers will face heavy increased costs, particularly transport costs. We also know that at the

moment the unions are negotiating for a substantial wage increase. We can only assume that grocers are now, quite properly, preparing to make a further and substantial claim for an increase in their margins. All this makes the award of £10 million the more surprising, because the Government apparently would be aware of what action they were considering in taking steps which might affect the grocers' costs. They were certainly aware that these wage negotiations were in progress.
Therefore, it is remarkable that the Minister should have made an award to the grocers at a rate £1½ million above that which the grocers themselves put their case in the summer when they made their representations to my right hon. Friend. In those circumstances, I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will accept that the burden is on him to show why he has made this award.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Bing: I rise to second this Motion in only a few words. Those of my hon. Friends and myself who set down these nine Motions have thought that we should take them together in the hope that we should have a good discussion, not prolonged unduly, but nevertheless sufficient to cover the entire aspect of this matter.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, now that he has heard the case put, will take an opportunity of dealing with these points. We have put the matter forward in an exploratory way. I know that many of my hon. Friends on this side of the House want to speak, but we do not want to keep the House unduly long. There may be hon. Gentlemen opposite who want to speak also. I hope, therefore, that the House will excuse me if I say no more than that I have great pleasure in supporting my hon. Friends, and I give way in the hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will now be in a position to say a word or two at the opening of this debate.

12.16 a.m.

Mr. W. R. A. Hudson: I am glad to have an opportunity of saying a few words in this debate because it is a subject of which I have some direct practical knowledge. I do not intend, for the moment, to follow the hon. Member


for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey) although I shall have something to say a little later about the points he has raised.
I must, at the outset, make it perfectly clear that I have a direct interest in the matter. It is because of that direct interest that I am aware of the general basis of investigation and calculation to which the hon. Member for Sunderland, North, has just referred, and of which he had such great experience when he was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food.
It so happens that the companies with which I am associated have for some years sent into the Ministry audited figures upon which, with other figures from other companies, they make their calculations. That brings me to the first point I want to emphasise, namely, that until the Minister of Food, and indeed the officials of the Ministry, have abundant proof that some increase in distributive margins is justified, they will never take any action at all, and the burden of proof is upon the trade and it is provided. But, having got that proof, that is not all. I am quite sure the hon. Gentleman will confirm—and, indeed, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary also will confirm—that after that it becomes necessary to deal with the matter at Treasury level to ascertain whether, in fact, the money is available and forthcoming. So that proof must be abundantly provided.
That brings me to the second point, which was also referred to by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North. There is invariably a considerable time lag between the period covered by the figures which are provided and the time when action can be taken, so that they are always out of date. And most of the figures that were quoted a moment ago were quite seriously out of date. Those that were more current were, it will be noted, not anything like as favourable as the earlier ones going back to 1949.
The fact is that the increased distributive margins—and I deliberately use that word instead of profit margins because there is a great difference—covered by the Orders which are now under review are already quite considerably out of date. The extra margins that have been granted to the retailer have, in many cases, been

absorbed by increased wages which have, in fact, been granted by certain sections of the trade already. It is fair to say that these margins are no greater than the total expenses involved, and possibly are not so great. Let us remember that there are increased rates, for almost every local authority is striking a higher rate for the coming year than that which it had for the current year, and there are increased fuel and transport and lighting costs. The margins granted by no means cover all the extra costs incurred.
But there is one feature of this matter to which I direct the attention of the House, and that is that the retail grocery trade is almost the only trade in the country now which is bound to work on what is called the unit margin principle. It is the only trade which, since the beginning of the war, has not been allowed to take into account quite freely its increasing costs as those have mounted year by year.
It is, I think, correct to say, as the hon. Member for Sunderland, North, has said, that during the last four years increases have been granted to the amount of £4 million a year as a global amount; but I have been going into some figures and I find that the £10 million a year involved in these Orders, if worked out on a per capita basis, means that for each registered customer, an extra three farthings a week has been granted.
It is important to remember that that means the customer must be registered for the whole range of foods—cooking fats, cheese, butter, bacon, and eggs, and the retailer must be in a position to supply the canned fruit and canned fish and condensed milk, all of which are included in the global sum. Yet the retailer gets for each of his customers, three farthings a week.
Based on the calculations of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North, it means that during the last four years the retailer, at the £4 million a year rate, has got something less than an increase of a farthing a week, per customer, to cover all his extra costs; and I am sure that the House will realise that, not only can that sum not be considered excessive, but it is barely adequate. It was said a few moments ago that the global sum of £1,500,000 granted by the ex-Minister of Food, was accepted, but I think that that is a really dubious way of putting it. The


retailer did not choose to accept it, and it was not accepted as being at all adequate; but it was felt that, sooner or later, this situation was bound to be reviewed, and that is what the Minister of Food has now done.
Having dealt with the matter on the basis of a per capita allowance on a distribution margin as distinct from a profit margin granted by these increased allowances I think the House will agree that we welcome this discussion because it will, I think, do away with a great many erroneous beliefs that are held about retail traders.

12.26 a.m.

Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: I do not propose to speak for long in this debate, but I think there are one or two things that ought to be said about these Orders. I am glad my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), has raised the central point at issue in this matter, which is to inquire why, after consideration last August, £1,500,000 was given to the grocers of the country and now another £10 million is being given? The latter sum is two and a half times the amount given from 1947. Some explanation should be given to clear the public's minds.
I recognise the difficulty facing the Ministry of Food. Grocers in this country have, for a long time, been among that section in distribution which has been making the smallest profits of all. One has to remember that we have a general economic problem and a growing problem of prices, but, nevertheless, one has to be fair in ascertaining what shall be allowed to grocers in terms of margins.
I should like to quote one or two figures about the margins in connection with the foods mentioned in the Orders. I think they are relevant, and I think the general public ought to know the difficulties which have faced grocers for a long time. Take butter. The gross profit on butter at the present moment, without the effect of these Orders, is 8 per cent. The gross profit on cheese is 5.1 per cent.; on margarine, 12.7 per cent.; on lard, 8.6 per cent.; on bulk sugar, either in one or 2 cwt. bags, 8.7 per cent.; pre-bagged sugar in cardboard cartons, 7.4 per cent.; imported fish and fruit, 9.4 per cent.; condensed milk, 8.7 per cent.
In terms of averages these are at least within the proved extensive expenses according to the costing division of the Ministry of Food. These come out at 9.6 per cent. I think it has been proved that the actual expenses given under these Orders in relation to the foods covered by them are, in terms of cost, much higher than the margins given to the grocer. I am a trade unionist, but I would not like to think that the Ministry of Food will not face the problems of a trade in this country that can only pay an adult worker £5 5s. 6d. a week. Therefore, in this problem, the relative value of the grocer to the general trade of the community must have a certain amount of consideration.

Mr. W. R. A. Hudson: The House ought to know that the figure which the hon. Member has quoted is the minimum rate and not necessarily the general rate which has been paid. I should not like the House to be misled in any way. In my speech I indicated that rates considerably in excess of that had been voluntarily agreed by a large section of the trade.

Mr. Winterbottom: I readily agree that as a result of independent negotiations, and sometimes on a voluntary basis, employers pay above the minimum rate, but the hon. Member will also realise that by far the majority of the workers in the grocery trade are paid according to Wages Council rates and that it is almost an exception for a trade union organiser to find employers paying above that rate, especially these days.
I detected in the hon. Member's speech a suggestion that the unit system was not filling the bill in the grocery trade, but I should not like to see the Ministry of Food pursue the same line as the Board of Trade and grant percentage increases to grocers. The hon. Member must agree that, by and large, until recently the unit system did a most useful job in keeping down the prices of commodities while giving a certain measure of justice to the employees and the employers. I know that that has been stretched recently; hence the reason for the £10 million grant.
Nevertheless, one has also to look at this from the point of view of the general public. In these days the main issue facing this Government—it would face any other Government—is the rising cost


of living. Therefore, when it is broadcast to the general public that £10 million more has been paid to the grocers, it is wise that we should ask, through this Prayer, for a full explanation by the Ministry of Food.
As an old grocer, I hope that the Minister will keep the unit system going. At the same time, he should be fair to the people experiencing great difficulties in the section of distribution with the smallest margins of all, especially those who have done a first-class job in dealing with the country's most difficult problem, the rationing system.

12.31 a.m.

Mrs. Jean Mann: I have a vested interest in this subject. After having heard other hon. Members admit something of a vested interest, it is time that I admitted my interest in these Orders as a housewife. I hope I shall not be called to order by the Chair. One can only speak of what is contained in these Orders, but as the chief ingredient is trouble for the housewife, one could detain the House for about two hours on that.
This is part of the trouble which the Tory Government is placing on the shoulders of the housewives. Butter, bacon, cheese; sugar, oils and fats; canned fish, fruit, eggs, condensed milk; and the gap between the wholesale and the retail price is to be moved in favour of the grocers to give them a profit of £10 million, or a margin. Has there been any representation by the housewives about the size of their margins?—that is, if they have any margins at all.

Mr. W. R. A. Hudson: It has, I think, been indicated that the housewife, that is to say, the consumer, is not affected by these Orders. At this stage the Orders are merely serving to provide for the distributor adequate means with which to do his job. I would like your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, on whether the hon. Lady is in order in calling attention to an effect upon the consumer which cannot come about?

Mr. Speaker: That is hardly a point of order, though it may be a point of debate. I think that perhaps if the hon. Lady hears what is said she will be enabled to confine her remarks to what is strictly relevant.

Mrs. Mann: I think I mentioned that the amount was between the wholesaler and the retailer. But I hope that the hon. Member who has just sat down does not think for a moment that he is pulling the wool over the eyes of the housewife and that she does not know that, in the end, the indirect result is, first, to establish a higher margin of profit for the grocer and, second, to increase the price of all commodities for the housewife.

Sir William Darling: By three-farthings a week.

Mrs. Mann: Yes, by a farthing a week.

Sir W. Darling: Three-farthings.

Mrs. Mann: I wonder if the hon. Member will come to the women of Edinburgh and persuade them that all that it means is three-farthings a week.
An hon. Member has stated in this House that he was convinced that when the grocers came to put their case to the Minister he had to have abundant proof. I think that hon. Gentlemen must admit that experience in this respect, so far as the Labour Government was concerned, has been a very long one, and that experience so far as the present Government is concerned is very short. Therefore, the abundant proof that the Ministry demands really mostly relates to the experience of a Labour Government. It is admitted that under the Labour Government the hon. Gentleman's friends got £1,500,000, but in the very short months of a Tory Government, as against the very long years of a Labour Government, his friends have got £10 million.

Mr. Hudson: I am sure that the hon. Lady would not wish to mislead the House; but it was made clear, I think, even by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey) that when the last discussion took place the trade accepted it. I followed that by saying that while the trade may have accepted it, it did not accept it as adequate. The allowance which has recently been made did take account of a considerable lag between what was granted and what was due, which could be proved on the figures which had been given. I think it most unfair to suggest that the increased allowances which have been made have been given through the generosity of the present Government.

Mrs. Mann: The hon Member has just proved my case. He has admitted that he was displeased—or his friends were displeased—at getting only £1,250,000. I hope that we shall have no more of these juvenile interruptions while I am on my feet.
I want to ask the Minister what inquiry he made beyond listening to the plea of the grocers about the actual position. The statement we had about the grocer having only a farthing per week extra to cover his costs—on what basis is that plea made? Where has he found his farthing? Any housewife would tell the House that the grocer can find more than a farthing when weighing out cheese or any other commodity.
Any housewife will say that even through the Order which details the various cuts and rolls of bacon amounting to quite a number—fore ends, square shoulders, collars with blade bones and collars without blade bones—she is quite unable to detect whether she is being charged ld. or 2d. or 4d. too much on these cuts, because grocers today do not put the price label on their cuts as they used to do.
How many grocers are giving up their shops? The House had to pass a Measure very urgently to protect grocers in their shops—there were so many competing with the owner of the shop to get possession. We had to rush it through—and at any rate we did get it for Scotland. There used to be rows of empty shops. We used to have pleas from the property owners, who objected to paying rates on empty premises. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling), can remember that very well, because I believe he is almost as old as I am.

Sir W. Darling: I am too juvenile.

Mrs. Mann: I thought it was a weakness of my sex to pose as being younger than one really is.
I can remember the empty shops and there are now no longer empty shops. Did the Minister, in fixing this £10 million margin for the grocers, take cognisance of the variation in prices between, say, Co-operative stores and multiple stores? I know that the shop counter prices are the same, but at the Co-operative with which I deal I get back 1s. 8d. in the £. To the ordinary customer it is called a dividend, but I know there are shop

Co-operative stewards who get 2s. in the £. I believe in London it is very much less. Did the hon. Gentleman ask how it comes about that the Co-operative stores can give this dividend, say, in Scotland, where freight is bound to be heavier than around London, while others are complaining that they have not got sufficient profit margin?
I see in these Orders a great deal of trouble for the housewife. The precedent is established that in one go £10 million can be handed out to the grocers in extra profits and I am sure that the plea that it is coming from the wholesaler will not go down with the housewife. In many cases, the wholesaler is also his own retailer. I view it with very great alarm and I hope that the Prayers against the Orders will be carried to a division tonight.

12.46 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Charles Hill): The hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey), moved his Motion with moderation. He made clear, it seems to me, that there is no dispute at all as to the responsibility of the Minister, in relation to price-controlled goods, to achieve reasonable returns at the different levels of handling in the trade.
I believe he would accept this from me, that in the days of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford, Central (Mr. Webb), as in the days of his predecessor, there was in the mind of the Minister of the day—and I know he will not expect me to elaborate it in detail—a level of post-war remuneration which was regarded as appropriate for the grocery trade. That level had a relation to the pre-war figures.
The first point I want to make is that my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Food is seeking to sustain the same level that the right hon. Gentleman opposite and his colleagues sought to sustain and the same level that the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor sought to sustain. So the objective, if a level may be so expressed, of post-war remuneration is not disputed between us.

Mrs. Mann: rose—

Dr. Hill: If the hon. Lady will allow me to develop the answer, I believe she may even be inclined to modify the view she has expressed.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North, related the circumstances of last year and I accept his description of them. In the summer, an application was made by the grocers on the basis of certain factors, including the wage award of 18th July, 1951, for an increase in margins, and the hon. Member's right hon. Friend made such changes as would achieve an increase in margins of £1½ million. But his right hon. Friend did something more than that. He instructed his officers to investigate the up-to-date position. Following that September increase, the officers of the Ministry—the right hon. Gentleman opposite knows of the skilled financial staff of the Ministry, who are employed on this work—made an investigation on the basis of the trading returns of establishments of different kinds.
What is new in the situation—new to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North—is, in fact, what the officers of the Ministry found, as the result of the inquiry they began on the instructions of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford, Central. They found there had been a substantial reduction in takings in the summer of 1951. They found that the wage award, to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, played a part. They found, too, a substantial increase in costs, including, of course, in costs of wrapping paper.

Mr. F. Willey: I am sorry to interrupt. I am entirely in the hands of the hon. Gentleman on the point of cost, but on the point of takings I mentioned the Board of Trade returns, which show increased turnover, over the year, of 12 per cent.

Dr. Hill: As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, I am giving the findings of the Minister's financial advisers and investigators into the position in the latter part of last year. It is reported that in that part of the year there was a substantial fall in earnings.

Mr. Willey: There may be a difference between the Minister's investigators and the Board of Trade, but this should be cleared up, because the Board of Trade returns for December, again, show that, as compared with 12 months before, there was a rather larger increase in the value of the turnover.

Dr. Hill: There is a difference between those returns of turnover and the findings of this investigation into net earnings. Furthermore, while the investigation was proceeding the import cuts announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at the end of last year, became a further worsening factor. The hon. Member will understand my difficulty in stating the figures in all their detail, and the embarrassment that would involve; but I think I can help the House if I say that what was found was that the earnings of grocers generally would have been little more than half what they were before the war. They would have fallen to that low level had nothing been done.
When one takes into account a reasonable percentage increment to reach a proper level of post-war earnings, one will see that the deficiency revealed was surprising—indeed, alarming. The deficiency revealed was more than twice the £10 million which my right hon. and gallant Friend finally decided was a fair award. My right hon. and gallant Friend is not concerned with the whole of the deficiency. As the hon. Gentleman himself pointed out, only some 60 per cent. of grocers' takings are in respect of price-controlled goods; but even so, making allowance for that factor, making allowance for the £1½ million which had already been given, and making allowance for certain other factors, my right hon. and gallant Friend reached the conclusion that the least that he could properly and decently give was £10 million, in order to remedy a situation dangerous to the people of this country. The small grocers' shops play a tremendously important part in the distribution of food.
My right hon. and gallant Friend might have rejected the report and done nothing about it. He might himself have decided on some level of earnings; but in his view, having discovered that alarming position, he was not entitled to expect grocers to subsidise the rest of the community; grocers and grocers' wives are entitled to proper remuneration. Facts unknown to the right hon. Member for Bradford, Central—because he was not in office when the work was completed—and unknown to the hon. Gentleman who moved this Prayer, led my right hon. and gallant Friend to decide that


the least sum that was reasonable and decent was £10 million. As the hon. Gentleman has said, these Orders are the avenue, as it were, through which the bulk of that £10 million finds its way to the retailers.
I will confine myself to the principle, as did the hon. Gentleman. Having discovered that the level of earnings, taking the import cuts into account, would have been little more than half the pre-war level, my right hon. and gallant Friend did the only reasonable and decent thing, and made this award. I ask the hon. Member for Sunderland, North, to consider whether, in the light of the additional information that I have given him, he does not feel able to withdraw his Motion. To annul the Orders would be inconsistent with the standards of remuneration which the right hon. Gentleman opposite himself sought to achieve, and to have done less than my right hon. and gallant Friend has done on the information before him would have been grossly unfair to a section of the community which does a great deal of unpaid work for the Government in working the rationing system, a section to which my right hon. and gallant Friend is greatly indebted, and one which is worthy of a little more praise than it has had in the past.

12.56 a.m.

Mr. Maurice Webb: I do not propose to detain the House very long, but in view of the speech which the hon. Gentleman has just made it would be improper of me, in view of past responsibility, not to say a word. We are all agreed that the grocers of this country have rendered very great service, and that we are in their debt for the way in which they maintained the integrity and stability of our rationing system in war and in the post-war years.
It is agreed, too, that they have done it on margins which were not lavish, not margins which led them into wild expenditure of public money. But against that, in judging the value of any particular adjustment of their margins, we have to consider certain other factors. We have to consider that the grocers have had a greater security under the rationing system than they had in pre-war years that rationing has, in fact, been a

guarantee to them of continuing trade. There have been, as has been pointed out, fewer bankruptcies, and there is no lack of people ready to go into the market and buy grocers' shops as they become available.
These factors have to be taken into account because we are discussing public money. Quite apart from the technicalities, whether it goes to the wholesalers or retailers, in the end it is either borne by the housewives or on the subsidy. In the end, because of the cutting down of the food subsidies by the Chancellor, the present Minister of Food will have to impose another £10 million on the prices of certain commodities, and that is what these Orders are about.
That is the simple arithmetic of it. The question is: How far were they entitled to this degree of increase? I agree straight away that they were entitled to some degree of increase. The inquiry, about which the hon. Gentleman spoke, was not a new inquiry started by me. I do not want to claim credit for something I did not do. it is, in fact, a continuing process of the existing investigations of the Ministry.

Dr. Hill: May I clarify that point? As the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey) said earlier, routine inquiries are in respect of the previous year, and are out of date by the time their fruits are available. What the right hon. Gentleman did was to institute a current up-to-date inquiry into the prevailing position. I hope he will not deny the credit for that.

Mr. Webb: I want to get at the truth of the matter. It is not a large point, but I want to get the facts accurate.
There is a continuing process of inquiry into the costing of the grocers' margins all the year round. That is a very valuable element in our Ministry of Food administration. It is true that when I was Minister I was not satisfied with the amount we were able to give them in the way of increased margins last year, and I urged the Ministry to look again at their problem to see what could be done against the background of their increased costs. I have not the latest information which is available to the Minister, but I have some later information. I had information right up to the middle


of October, and, adding that up, I am frankly astonished that the Minister has found it possible to make an arrangement of this order.
When I first heard, privately, that the figure he was going to grant to the grocers was £10 million I said spontaneously, "That is ridiculous," because on my calculation, taking account of all I felt they were entitled to, I thought £10 million was going far beyond what was reasonable, bearing in mind that at this time the Chancellor is asking other sections of the community to tighten their belts, to do without, to make some sacrifice, that we are living beyond our means, and all that kind of economic argument that is used.
We are tightening our economy, and this seems to me to be an inappropriate moment for making an extension of this order. When I learned that the Minister was prepared to go to the extent of £10 million I thought he was being quite reckless, and that something like £5 million or £6 million would be reasonable, proper and adequate, and in the circumstances would be a proper adjustment and, on the whole, satisfactory for the grocers.
The trouble is that, when we talk about these things in this global way we are doing an injustice to certain sections of the trade. I wish we could separate the multiple grocers from the small family grocer. I think that even on this figure the small family grocer will not find things easy. Certainly, the large multiple grocers will find things much easier, and rather easier than I think they ought to at this time. However, we cannot make that distinction; the Minister must settle the thing on that global basis. In my view, he has been unduly and unnecessarily generous in making this concession. But there it is. We on this side of the House are agreed that some concession ought to be made; we are not disposed to quarrel with that. That is the figure that has been arrived at, and we want to

make our protest against the size of the figure. I advise my hon. Friend to leave it there, having made our protest, and to withdraw his Motion.

Mr. F. Willey: The Parliamentary Secretary has extended to me an invitation to withdraw this Motion, which I should like to accept, but not on the grounds on which he invited me to do so. I think that in matters like this it is very dangerous to make allowances for future import cuts. I have emphasised that we should really regard these matters in retrospect on a purely costing basis, and I was alarmed to learn that there was an element connected with future import cuts. I emphasise "future" because these cuts have not yet affected retail distribution at the time of the award. I say no more than that, because I do not want to transgress the rules of order.
I willingly accept the Parliamentary Secretary's invitation, but on these grounds. This was a collective agreement, reached no doubt after prolonged negotiation, and I think that it would be wrong for the House lightly to upset that agreement. However, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will, following the useful debate we have had, pay proper attention to these matters and endeavour to check up on the information upon which he acts—although I am not casting doubt upon it—by making inquiries in a wide range of fields. I could not, for example, accept that the grocers are half as well off as they were before the war. In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Speaker: As the discussion on that Order ranged over all the Orders in respect of which Prayers had been put down, the hon. Gentleman will not, I take it, desire to move the remaining Motions.

Mr. Willey: That is correct, Mr. Speaker. In view of the general discussion, I have no desire to move the remaining Motions.

SOUTH-WESTERN GAS BOARD (OFFICIALS' PRIVATE SERVICES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Vosper.]

1.5 a.m.

Mr. I. J. Pitman: I had a Question which I desired to ask the Minister, Mr. Speaker. It was: whether he was aware that the secretary and solicitor of an area board recently acted professionally in connection with the sale of his chairman's private house; that the board's official notepaper was used for correspondence, and the board's offices used for meetings in connection therewith during normal business hours; and if he would give a general direction to electricity, gas and coal boards to ensure that their professional officials did not so act in future.
That question was inadmissible, Sir, but you kindly said that it was suitable for an Adjournment debate, and I crave the indulgence of the House at this late hour to raise this important issue of principle. Although it arises over a specific instance, there has been more than one instance, as I shall show. I do not wish to raise it in particular, for an important principle is at stake. No names, no pack drill. There are three industries potentially covered in this, electricity, coal and gas, and a vast number of areas. There is, I submit, no need to go into the details of which I have, however, given the Minister information.
The specific instance is one of a £13,500 free conveyance by the solicitor of the board, and that is a considerable benefit to the chairman concerned. There is a total, I am told, of £100,000 conveyances in one area board, and in connection with the chairman alone, taking two transactions, they total some £25,000.
I want to make it clear that I am not seeking in any way to blame the subordinates. It seems to me that a subordinate official, even if he takes the initiative and offers to do the work for his chairman, is not really to blame. It is the chairman, who does not have to accept, but who does accept that offer, who is the responsible person.
Obviously, subordinates like to be in the position of offering something worth £100 to their superior officer. I do not think there is anything particularly wrong, whether it is on a friendly basis or not, in

doing that. Similarly, they may be offering it to their colleagues and not just to the chairman, again on a friendly basis. But here again I would say that the chairman of the board is wholly responsible and it is he who is, therefore, taking the initiative in this matter.
We have a fine tradition in the Civil Service and I would like that fine tradition to carry over into these nationalised undertakings. I think we would all agree in this House that it would be unthinkable that the Minister himself or the Permanent Secretary of any Department should use the solicitors or the architects or the quantity surveyors or the accountants to do the Minister's or the Permanent Secretary's own private business for them and give them considerable benefit in doing it. It is quite unthinkable, and I hope that we shall have the same high standard of principle adopted in the nationalised undertakings.
After all, what this involves is adding secretly to the salaries of those who receive these benefits in kind. They may not be always asking or even expecting, but in accepting the services of their professional subordinates they break what I consider is a most important principle of honourable British conduct.
Now, it may be said that in public and private companies this same sort of thing could happen. But I do not think that it greatly does and, even if it did, there are in the Companies Acts, and Section 39 of the 1948 Finance Act, two most healthy safeguards. But they do not apply to nationalised undertakings. In regard to the Companies Acts, there has to be shown the emoluments of the higher officials in terms of their benefits in kind; and if a director received £100 worth of free services from his company that would have to be published and shown on the face of the accounts. What is equally important is that, under the Finance Act, he would have to pay Income Tax on it and, if Surtax applied, he would have to pay that as well.
The officials of the nationalised undertakings are in a doubly privileged position and treated in quite different terms from officials of the Civil Service, on the one hand, or those in business, on the other. Further, this is damaging to the Parliamentary control of this House. The chairman gets £4,500 a year salary, with £500 expenses, but he is able, although


he ought not to be, by a subterfuge of devious channels, to get round the law and add to his emoluments. Even if he does, it ought not to be by a secret method not disclosed to Parliament and not even ascertainable unless, by some disclosure, the matter is brought to the attention of an hon. Member who may raise it in this sort of way.
Finally, we have to admit that many hon. Members, as well as the public at large, are disappointed at the way in which the consumers' councils are working; they are not protecting the interests of the consumer; they are not really a restraint on expenditure, but a channel for justifying expense after it has taken place. They do not form a restraint on the Chairman in his extraordinary position of power, but exist as a weapon for justifying him and the board in relation to consumers in general.
So, there is not the effect of competition to keep down the costs of that which is being sold. The cost of any free service to the chairman and others has to be added to the cost of running the undertaking, and this adds to the price of gas, electricity, and coal, to a certain extent. There should be a consumers' council acting to prevent such additional costs, and there should be restraint on the chairman when he takes such free services and adds to costs, and I ask that the Minister should give some general direction. He has the power under the Acts. Either the chairman is acting illegally—and then I ask the Minister to stop him, or the chairman is acting properly, in which case it is a clear case for a direction from the Minister that the area boards should conduct themselves in the way that, for example, the Civil Service so honourably conducts itself.

1.15 a.m.

Major W. Hicks Beach: In speaking on this subject I should declare an interest, because I am a member of the solicitor's profession. I believe that the profession as a whole will welcome that my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman) has raised this matter, because it is giving concern to the profession how those members who are engaged in nationalised industries are placed if they have to give free legal advice to the members of the nationalised boards.
I am not suggesting that in either case my hon. Friend mentioned it is not perfectly proper, but even on the actual issue of whether they acted properly in giving free professional advice, it seems to me that is a matter for the Law Society, which controls the professional conduct of solicitors. I have no doubt that the Law Society has the matter very much in mind, but it occurs to me that, if the practice is to continue, all kinds of complications will occur in the nationalised industries.
For example, if a solicitor is handling clients' money, as indeed he must do in particular transactions, he is bound to keep a clients' account, and have it properly certified by an accountant. I should be interested to know whether these matters are being dealt with in the nationalised industries by solicitors, and whether they are keeping proper clients' accounts in accordance with the solicitors' rules.
The other issue which occurs to me, which is wider and which I regard as more important, is the one to which my hon. Friend referred; it is whether it was proper for members of the nationalised industries, in whatever capacity they are members, to receive free legal advice, and not return it for the purposes of emoluments. As we know, and my hon. Friend has properly said, under a recent Finance Act—I think it is the 1949 Act—there is a provision whereby directors and companies have to return emoluments received, and quite properly have to pay tax on them. This is a close corollary to that position. I hope that if that is to become the custom in the nationalised industries, consideration will be given to that point.
There is another point which I should like to mention. It is whether this free legal work was done during the office hours and time of the boards or industries concerned. If it was done in office hours and there is a strong case for the solicitors employed by nationalised industries having time to do outside work not connected with their immediate task, then some consideration should be given to cutting down the number of solicitors employed by the nationalised industries.
I hope that the Minister will give this matter consideration. I am not criticis-


ing the case to which my hon. Friend referred. I have no doubt the solicitors concerned acted perfectly properly, but I think that the whole question of solicitors engaged by nationalised industries wants careful consideration, and I hope we shall hear something from the Minister about it.

1.19 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. L. W. Joynson-Hicks): In the first place, I should like to express my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman) for letting us have notice of the detailed questions he was going to refer to during the debate.
I should like straightaway to deal with the question of the special case to which he has referred. I think that this debate has been a good thing. I think it shows that there are in the minds of some Members some doubts on this problem, which is a difficult one, and that it will help considerably to clear the air, and disperse any misconceptions there may be.
Before I actually come to the special case, I should like to make the general situation quite clear from the point of view of the desire of the House to know what my right hon. Friend thinks about it. In general, the House as a whole, and my hon. Friends, too, would wish to avoid any possibility of an impression going out from this House that my right hon. Friend would countenance a practice of board members requiring officers of a board to act professionally for them in their private affairs. That is the broad principle which should be made clear in the course of this debate, and I think it will help to clear the air and prevent any misconception.
To come to the facts of this case, my hon. Friend, with great consideration, endeavoured to cloak the circumstances with anonymity, but I doubt very much whether he has really been successful. He is well known as the hon. Member for Bath and there are not all those numbers of boards which are likely to come within his purview. So let us say straight away that he is referring to the South-Western Gas Board.
He also referred to the fact that, in his understanding, a sum of about £100,000 worth of purchase money had

been dealt with in the form of conveyances carried out by the solicitor to the Board on behalf of members of the staff. I am not in a position to comment upon that figure, and I do not know whether it is correct or not, but I think that the circumstances to which he refers can again be made quite clear.
I shall submit to the House that it was a right and proper thing to do. The setting up of the boards necessitated at very short notice not only the appointment of the members of the boards themselves, but also the collection of staff and officers from different parts of the country and their concentration into the new organisation at great inconvenience and with great difficulty. It was a decision of the South-Western Gas Board, taken as a whole, in order to assist some 15 newly-appointed officers of the Board—not members of the Board—who had to come into Bath to take up residence to serve the new Board.
There was no other way of getting these officers housed except by their buying houses for themselves, and the Board decided that the conveyancing and legal work involved should be done for them by the solicitor to the Board. That was a Board decision, a matter of policy, and would account for a very large proportion, at any rate, of the £100,000 purchase money to which my hon. Friend referred. I submit that that was a proper business decision for the Board to make and a proper exercise of the functions of the solicitor of the Board.
I now come to the case in which my hon. Friend referred to the sale of the house by one of the Board members. Again, let us not cloak that with anonymity. The gentleman in question is the Chairman of the Board, and he would be the last person in the world to seek to avoid the criticism of any of his actions by hiding under any anonymity. Mr. Chester, the Chairman, is a gentleman of the highest integrity, and he is quite prepared to accept in public any criticism which there may be of his action.
He has been in the industry for some 30 years—he grew up in the industry—and he is well known as one of the most competent and efficient leaders in the industry. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the consumers in my hon. Friend's constituency, and throughout the


South-Western area, are fortunate in having a gentleman of his ability and prominence as Chairman of the Board. As past president of the Institution of Gas Engineers he is well known throughout the gas industry internationally, in addition to being a prominent member of the industry in this country.
He was one of the gentlemen who had to uproot their homes and move with their families. He had lived for many years in the place he had to leave to fulfil his duties as chairman of the Area Gas Board. He had to move to Bath. That was not an easy thing to do, and he was settling down when tragedy came to him and his family. The House, I know, will have great sympathy with him when I say that they were bereaved through the sudden death of a daughter living in the home. That did not make things any easier, and after continuing for a period in close association with the place, Mr. Chester decided to get rid of his house.
As I think may be imagined from what I have said about this gentleman, he is one who has a great capacity for friendship, and many of his friends, sympathising with him in his bereavement, sought to help him in any way they could. One of his closest friends was Mr. Curtis, the solicitor to the Board. It was but natural that from the close bond of friendship between them Mr. Curtis should offer to relieve him of the trouble and worry over disposing of his property.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Major Hicks Beach) referred to the work being carried out in working hours. Mr. Curtis, as a senior officer of the Board, has no working hours. It is not inappropriate at this hour of the morning that I should say that Mr. Chester rather takes the same line as you and I do, Mr. Speaker, that so long as there is work to be done those are the working hours. The hon. and gallant Member for Cheltenham also referred to the professional aspect of the matter. Here I would apologise to the House for not disclosing my personal interest as a member of the profession, not a practising member, perhaps, but still a member of the profession. But, even in that capacity, it is not for me to comment upon professional conduct.
As a member of the profession, all I would say is that I am sure that no member of our profession who is in full

knowledge of the circumstances and the facts would have the slightest objection to what Mr. Curtis did. I am glad to say that it has never been our custom, and I hope it will not become our custom, to prevent a man, because he is a solicitor, helping a person in trouble.
Those are the circumstances. There is nothing secret or underhand about the matter. Before undertaking the task, Mr. Curtis—as I think my hon. Friend said—wrote to the Law Society for confirmation of his opinion that it would be proper for him to act, and in his letter he said that this was an exceptional type of case which would not often arise. I believe he was perfectly correct and that was a right statement of the situation and I submit that this special case, approved by the Law Society, would be endorsed by the profession as a whole, and is one to which this House in particular would, I believe, be the last to take exception.
If I may return for a moment to the general theme of the speech of the hon. Member for Bath, I do most wholeheartedly agree with the tribute he paid to the integrity of our Civil Service. The high standard they set is an example to us all. I think he referred to the attitude which should be adopted by Ministers. Ministers come and Ministers go, but I think not only Ministers but members of public boards or directors of public or private companies may all benefit by seeking to emulate the high standards set by the Civil Service.
I believe myself, from such personal experience as I have, that these standards are rising, because in the olden days it was not uncommon for business executives, whether directors of companies or public utility concerns, to enjoy the services of their office. I am quite certain that in the case of members of area boards it would be entirely wrong to say, as the hon. Member for Bath said, that they were adding secretly to their salaries by these benefits in kind, or to use such expressions as he used—subterfuge, devious channels and secret methods.
I am sorry to have to say to my hon. Friend that / resent those expressions, which carry with them implications and innuendoes which are unjustified, and I most certainly do not accept them as being a correct representation of the facts so far as I am aware of them.

Mr. Pitman: I was talking in purely general terms and referring to the dangers of the situation. I should not like to say that in this particular case there was anything of that. It seems to me to be perfectly clear that the principles of disclosure to proprietors and for taxation which apply in ordinary cases are matters of general principle and wide application.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: If I have misunderstood my hon. Friend I am very pleased indeed, and I apologise for misunderstanding him. I sincerely hope that it will not go out from this House that such implications or innuendoes can be drawn from the present circumstances.
I had hoped to be able to make some comments upon the remarks of my hon. Friend regarding the consultative councils, but I rather think we shall have to leave that for another debate—and an excellent subject it would make for another debate. I would add one word about it. I think that these councils and the consumers' councils are, in fact, providing better and greater representation of consumers' interests at the present time than my hon. Friend is prepared to give them credit for.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-six Minutes to Two o'Clock a.m.